Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus

Malcolm wrote:

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

I see no logical justification for going off on this unrelated sidebar tangent in this thread.

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, I really don't give a rat's backside what you see or don't see,  If you think something isn't relevant to the thread, you are entirely free to ignore it.

Actually, your replying to my every post suggests otherwise.

Good advice. You're entirely at liberty to follow it as well.

Malcolm wrote:

Absentia suggested that the decision to make America a republic drove the choices of Puritans.  I suggested (with the weight of historical evidence) that it was the other way around.

Read the complete relevant post again.

This explanation covers the first paragraph.

It does not cover the second.

Your second paragraph is nothing other than an ego trip to impress yourself and anyone else who may care on your nearly exhaustive knowledge on European royals and wannabes.

Imagine, if you spent a fraction of the time you spend on studying and researching European royalty on worthwhile community minded endeavors, the amount of good you could have accomplished.

Malcolm wrote:

Please stop this harassment,...

If you feel you are being harassed, bring it up with a mod.

If you have, I expect we will hear about it tomorrow.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

I think you are oversimplifying several things here - though admittedly a discussion thread post doesn't leave time for a lot of nuance.  But just to look at this one point, I'd suggest that the Puritans (or their spiritual descendents) didn's become Republicans because America became a republic, but rather that the anti-monarchism of the Puritans was a significant factor in America's choice to become a republic. 

(There were discussions about establishing an American monarchy, either by electing an American as first monarch [most likely George Washington] or by inviting a European royal to become king.  Washington explicitly turned down the opportunity.  The most likely candidates in the latter scenario were Heinrich of Prussia, Charles Edward Stuart or Edward of Kent.  Either of the latter could have created interesting issues.  Charles Edward Stuart was the legitimist claimant to the British thrones, and an American throne might have given him the necessary capacity to retake his British thrones, reuniting the British and American sovreignties.  Edward of Kent was a younger son George III, but it since both George IV and William IV died without legitimate issue, it was Edward's daughter who became Queen Victoria - which would also have served to reunite the British and American sovreignties.)

Frmrsldr wrote:

Wow! I am very impressed!

You really dig that monarchy stuff, don't you?

Ken Burch wrote:

He doesn't dig the monarchy at all.  He just knows his history.  Would you say that anyone who was up on the history of the Third Reich "really digs that Hitler stuff"?

In a word, "Yes." Other people who would study the Third Reich to the extent it appears Malcolm has studied British and European monarchy, would do so to oppose nazism, neo-nazism, the Third Reich and all it stands for.

Aside from the occassional lip service to republicanism followed by an excuse for why not to try to achieve it (as you yourself provide), Malcolm has otherwise said absolutely nothing about opposition to monarchy. So, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, feels like a duck, smells like a duck, chancs are, it's a duck.

Ken Burch wrote:

Fact is, anti-monarchism is a much more pressing issue for the Brits(at one point in the Eighties, the Labour Party had a manifesto commitment to abolish the monarchy) than it is for Canada.  Malcolm is just as anti-monarchist as you are.  He just doesn't believe that that is the SINGLE most important issue for the Canadian left.  Why can't you just accept that its an issue Canadian leftists can legitimately disagree about?  Fighting globalization and ending support for the imperial ambitions of the U.S. are, arguably, far more pressing concerns for Canada's left than putting paid to the Windsor Germans.

If you think abolishing (the suzerainty) of the British monarchy in Canada is the single most pressing issue with me, compare the number of antimonarchy posts with the number of Afghan war posts I've made.

This binary thinking is a fallacy. It's not a case of Canada's left either invests all its energy into abolishing the monarchy or it invests all its energy into fighting against globalism, (American) imperialism and the Afghan war.

It is not impossible, in fact it's quite possible to do all these simultaneously and successfully, even when allocating time, effort and resources appropriately.

Ken Burch wrote:

Canadian troops are dying in Afghanistan.  Nobody's dying because Liz is still on the money.

In fact, the absolute contrary is very much the case.

As a Canadian soldier, one swears an oath of allegiance to the "... queen, her heirs, successors and representatives."

In other words, as a Canadian soldier, one swears an oath of allegience to a foreign sovereign - the British crown.

A foreign sovereign, the British queen is the Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Canadian soldiers are fighting, dying, maiming and murdering innocent Afghans and every other evil act they are committing in this immoral, unjust and illegal war in the name of a foreign sovereign (head of state) - in the name, that is of the BRITISH QUEEN. (Yes indeed, the face that adorns Canadian legal tender whenever Canadians make financial transactions.)

How does that grab you?

Canadian troops would STILL be dying in Afghanistan if Stephen Harper were President of the Republic of Canada.

Malcolm wrote:

Your behaviour has been drawn to the attention of the moderators.

Just a bit of friendly advice, don't post post personal "dirty laundry" issues for all the other babblers who come here to read.

They don't care, want to know, might think you're nuts.

If you felt it was absolutely necessary to inform me of your action, you should have sent me a private rabble user e-mail instead.

By me as well.  Give it a rest, frmrsldr.  Just stop.  You're now holding two threads hostage to this pointless vendetta.

Frmrsldr, you've been repeatedly asked to limit your arguments to the the argument itself, and not personally insult the babbler with whom you are debating.  If you cannot, or will not, distinguish between debate and ad hominen attack, you need to either educate yourself or leave this forum.

Frmrsldr wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Evangelicals on the other hand,are vocal in their disdain for 'compassion' ,'empathy', the poor and justice.

 

They do have their use for say, televangelist "ministers."

"Please donate what you can right now so we can send a mission to spread the word of Jesus christ, our lord and savior, our salvation to the poor and needy, to the suffering of (say) Haiti."

This is literally translated to read: "Please donate what you can right now so we can send our people for an all expense paid vacation to an exotic Caribbean resort where we will assault these godless communist atheists, devil worshippers and heathens with our religious bullshit. Bibles rather than secure employment with a living wage and food. The reason why these people suffer from poverty, unemployement or poor paying jobs, homelessness, malnutrition, poor health, illiteracy, crime and natural disasters is because this is god's way of punishing them for not accepting Jesus christ into their hearts as their one true savior. The remaining profit after expenses, and there always is remaining profit, all goes to me, minister of the church of [insert name here.] Tax sheltered religion means 'No Taxes', 100% profit after expenses. The reason why I am rich - look at the homes I live in, look at the cars I am chauffeured in, look at the Gucchi business suits I wear, look at all the jewell encrusted gold rings I wear on my fingers - is because I accept Jesus in my heart and these are the outward material manifestations of god's wondrous bountious blessings."

I hear you on that,frmrsldr.

It always makes me laugh when I see a Christian Children's Fund commercial where they state, "Christian Children's Fund is one of the world's most trusted charities...80 cents of every dollar goes directly to the children"

Hmm..I wonder where the other 20% goes.

I got into the wrong profression..I should have started a Charity...preferably a charity with the christian brand..Openly pocketing 20% of the proceeds..My guess is that figure doesn't include other 'expenses'...Man,I'd be rich..Woo-hoo!

Praise the lord...can I get an Amen?

Good god, can't we stay on topic? But don't just blame the offenders, try to understand them - various modern mental illnesses create problems with concentration. Stress and anxiety make us easily distracted. Electronic devices, such as the laptop I am tapping on now, also cause problems with concentration. Also, many things make us MEAN, where we attack people and lash out at anything that might confuse us or that challenges us. So TRY to be nice, gawdaamit, even to those who attack you.

Plato said it: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."

---- Ok, back on track -

 Evangelicals are the biggest hypocrits on the planet. Jesus mentioned something about hypocracy being a huge sin...

Speaking of religious beliefs:

 IF there were a heaven.. religious people would be barred for eternity.

 IF there is a hell.... I will end up with a religious room mate. If I go to the worst kind of hell, that room mate will be typical Christian parading as a moral being who steals my yogurt.

{note - "heaven and hell" are merely literary devices, there is no such thing}

alan smithee wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Evangelicals on the other hand,are vocal in their disdain for 'compassion' ,'empathy', the poor and justice.

 

They do have their use for say, televangelist "ministers."

"Please donate what you can right now so we can send a mission to spread the word of Jesus christ, our lord and savior, our salvation to the poor and needy, to the suffering of (say) Haiti."

This is literally translated to read: "Please donate what you can right now so we can send our people for an all expense paid vacation to an exotic Caribbean resort where we will assault these godless communist atheists, devil worshippers and heathens with our religious bullshit. Bibles rather than secure employment with a living wage and food. The reason why these people suffer from poverty, unemployement or poor paying jobs, homelessness, malnutrition, poor health, illiteracy, crime and natural disasters is because this is god's way of punishing them for not accepting Jesus christ into their hearts as their one true savior. The remaining profit after expenses, and there always is remaining profit, all goes to me, minister of the church of [insert name here.] Tax sheltered religion means 'No Taxes', 100% profit after expenses. The reason why I am rich - look at the homes I live in, look at the cars I am chauffeured in, look at the Gucchi business suits I wear, look at all the jewell encrusted gold rings I wear on my fingers - is because I accept Jesus in my heart and these are the outward material manifestations of god's wondrous bountious blessings."

 

I hear you on that,frmrsldr.

It always makes me laugh when I see a Christian Children's Fund commercial where they state, "Christian Children's Fund is one of the world's most trusted charities...80 cents of every dollar goes directly to the children"

Hmm..I wonder where the other 20% goes.

I got into the wrong profression..I should have started a Charity...preferably a charity with the christian brand..Openly pocketing 20% of the proceeds..My guess is that figure doesn't include other 'expenses'...Man,I'd be rich..Woo-hoo!

Praise the lord...can I get an Amen?

Actually 20% is pretty good compared to most charities.  Check out the cancer society and other charities for their percentages.

Some even have the 80/20 split but the other way around. No expenses could be 80% but hey they manage it

I prefer the United way and local charities myself

You know these people like this Jacobs woman would surely be diagnosed and probably confined to a hospital if they were to sit in front of a shrink with these ramblings.

At the very least,they'd be prescribed an anti-psychotic med.

ETA : I meant in general,not one particular zealot.

alan smithee wrote:

You know these people like this Jacobs woman would surely be diagnosed and probably confined to a hospital if they were to sit in front of a shrink with these ramblings.

At the very least,they'd be prescribed an anti-psychotic med.

 

ETA : I meant in general,not one particular zealot.

I would be very, very cautious about making statements like that. When I refer to Jacobs (and her ilk) I much prefer to employ the term "crank" than to suggest that there is any correlation between their ramblings and any mental illness. They (Jacobs and her ilk) are often very shrewd, manipulative people who are quite aware they are spewing out 100% bullshit and continue to do so because it is delivering results they want. Being manipulative and taking advantage of others' gullibility is not a very good indicator of whether one is mentally ill - although it is an excellent indication that the characteristics of one's personality are anything but desirable.

A Church of England vicar has been arrested in Britain's second major police investigation in as many years into bogus marriages staged to help immigrants win residents' visas.

The church immediately suspended the Rev. Canon Patrick Magumba amid claims he was involved in scores of sham weddings at three churches in northeast England, Religion News Service reports.

Last year in a similar case, a vicar was sent to jail for conducting some 360 fake weddings to help foreigners evade immigration regulations.

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/news-update-items/article/anglican-priest-arrested-on-bogus-marriage-charges-9632.html

@ Caissa

Interesting on a few fronts - that it is actually a criminal offence in Britain. Also, they don't say anything in that piece about his motive. Certainly nothing about him profiting from the practice. 

He might have been helping people who would otherwise have been sent somewhere to face a dire situation.

Or not.... but without more information we don't know.

@ Malcolm

And the Republicans, strangely enough, started out as the party of anti-slavery, and anti-big business (specifically anti-big plantation).

And also strange that the Puritans' old stomping grounds are not only predominantly Democratic, even at the time of the revolution they were anti-slavery.

I think a lot of the "individual freedom" and "states rights" movement in the U.S. came not from a real desire for liberty, but to the defend the southern institution of slavery - defending their freedom to keep slaves.

Personally, I like Ben Franklin's take on religion. He was not a dogmaticist, and he came out later in his life as not believing in the divinity of Jesus. Still, he thought having lots of churches was a good thing, and he visited all of them regularly.

Better than Jefferson's bowdlerized version of the Bible, IMO.

Ken Burch wrote:

Canadian troops would STILL be dying in Afghanistan if Stephen Harper were President of the Republic of Canada.

Yes, and IF, in the absense of a monarch, its representative and their human replacement and

war criminal Herr Harper were made Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces,

THEN Canadians could clearly (unlike the situation now) lay the guilt of all the war crimes, all the Afghan people and all the Canadian soldiers physically and emotionally maimed and killed, morally and legally at his feet.

What's not to like about that?

alan smithee wrote:

I hear you on that,frmrsldr.

It always makes me laugh when I see a Christian Children's Fund commercial where they state, "Christian Children's Fund is one of the world's most trusted charities...80 cents of every dollar goes directly to the children"

Hmm..I wonder where the other 20% goes.

I got into the wrong profression..I should have started a Charity...preferably a charity with the christian brand..Openly pocketing 20% of the proceeds..My guess is that figure doesn't include other 'expenses'...Man,I'd be rich..Woo-hoo!

Praise the lord...can I get an Amen?

We have now discovered the defining difference between fundamentalist (tel)evangelist christian churches and ministries and established mainstream christian faiths, churches and ministries and registered charities:

It is their relationship to evil.

For registered charities, and I would imagine registered charities run by established mainstream christian churches, the 20% goes to paying expenses. For established mainstream christian churches, evil is bad. The purpose of evil is for benevolent christians to try to prevent, reduce or end it. Of course, people being fallible, although their attempts are noble, they ultimately fail, yet at least some good was (hopefully) accomplished. Thus, even though failure is guaranteed, the message is, we should at least try.

For fundamentalist (tel)evangelist christian ministries evil is good. Fundamentalist (tel)evangelist christian ministries are the commercialization of religion. They are the product of capitalism invading every aspect of our lives. Evil is commodified. Although fundamentalist (tel)evangelist christian ministries/ministers do not create primeval (pre-existing) evil, evil is a "commodity" or means of making profit for them.

So, when an earthquake strikes Haiti, for example, they say this is god's way of punishing the sinful (impoverished Haitians.) They swoop like vultures down on Haiti, preach their "word of god" to them, in order to "save" them. When they have accepted their word of god, then they are "saved". When they are "saved", they are going to get a good paying, secure job. They are going to have a good and secure income. They are going to buy a decent house for themselves. They are going to have a secure source of nutritional food. They are going to have good clothes on their backs. They are going to have a family car for transportation, etc. This is god's manifestation that they are blessed because they have accepted their interpretation of the "word of god."

All the while they have camera crews showing the ministry followers running those bible camps. The television audience sees smiling Haitian children with washed faces wearing clean new clothes, eating good food and learning English and the bible. We see Haitian adults in similiar scenes showing us small but adequate and secure houses that they (supposedly) live in. They smile and speak in English and tell the camera that things are getting better and they praise and thank the [place name here] ministry for this.

All the while, the television audience is prompted to send in their donations. 20% or 10% or 5% or whatever it is goes to expenses - the trip there and back, the accomodations, the site set up, the bibles and materials, the food and clothes the Haitians were given to con them into this staged television event. After that, the rest is pure profit. FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND BELIEVERS. YES INDEED. PRAISE BE TO GOD. ALELLULAH. AMEN, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!

Sin is a very profitable business indeed. Praise the lord that there are so many suckers, I mean, believers born every minute!

bagkitty wrote:

As interesting as all these diversions are though, when can I expect we will be returning to the question posed in the OP?

Does "In $ We Trust" (loving money) equate to hating Jesus?

Judas Iscariat sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, so the bible tells us.

When "The Power of Love" becomes "The Love of Power."