Jesus of Nazareth, known as "J-dogg" by some

[Lucifer Sam]

The origins are older than the Old Testament. I think the first mention of head covering goes back to ancient Assyria in the 13th century BCE.
You are right about Khadija - although much of that was PR to win over her tribe, the Quraysh, which was key to his development as a political leader in the region. Mohammed was a skilled tactician, I will give him that.

As long as we're agreed that Islam does not mandate a husband to limit contact with his wife to sex only. Allah will not suffer misrepresentation.

 

[goinghome]

Lol as if you count

Personal abuse? Ugly.

back on topic …

Jesus! What happened to this thread?!

Shit-posts?!

The idea that women should be 'covered' almost certainly owes its origins to the very ancient idea that women are 'unclean' because they bleed once a month. That cultural belief is a thread running through the world religions, right up to the 21st century. Some might argue it is even still seen in the modern religion of 'woke', with its sacred tenet that a man can turn into a woman as if by magic, thus erasing womanhood altogether. Fear of the feminine is seen very strongly in Islam, and in the writings of Paul, of course.

Religions before the patriarchal ones often featured lewd powerful women - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Eat your heart out, Lou de Laâge!

No one’s being pilloried, so no examples will be set.

Except Malarkey. Bring the gadfly back, I say, in the name of Christianity and Morrisanity!

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Personal abuse? Ugly.

It's all that old, rotten dishrag is good for.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

The Venus of Willendorf is exactly what I was thinking of. Fertility goddesses are no good. Maybe Lou de Laâge will become a Messiah figure. History records at least one female Messiah claimant: Eve Frank. She claimed to be the Shekinah. The French do have a tendency to venerating women. The Blessed Virgin, Joan of Arc, Marianne. It could happen again.

 

[gashonthenail]

Personal abuse? Ugly.

​

Malarkey is one of the worst culprits of that, goinghome, although you seem to turn a blind eye to it when she does it. I think most of us are fairly tolerant of the worst of her obsessiveness - as Lawrence Sterne put it, "even the wisest, not excepting Solomon himself, had their whims and their hobby-horses, and as long as a man rides his hobby-horse peaceably, it's nobody else's business."
But the constant personal abuse, the taking of screen shots, the doxing, is all rather unpleasant and distasteful. Either call out personal abuse in everyone - or don't call it out at all.

 

[goinghome]

Malarkey is one of the worst culprits

I disagree, gashonthenail. She name-calls and berates, based on her perception of message content and intent; but not based on personality. Is time-out given for too many posts, or too many posts of a particular type, or what? I'm always trying to catch up with the rest of you.

Here's something that resonates!

 

[Lucifer Sam]

A not surprising update on Russell Brand likely becoming Catholic: Russell Brand prays the Rosary on video for his 11+ million followers. "In one of his videos, Brand, who is 48 and lives in England, said that 'we have no choice but Christ' and that 'this cannot anymore be a left versus right thing' but a 'right versus wrong thing.'"

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

comedy at its best.

 

[Tea with the taste]

Russell is serious about this stuff, he is I think genuinely spiritually motivated and driven.
Of course it’s so easy to laugh …… etcetera

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Russell is serious about this stuff, he is I think genuinely spiritually motivated and driven.
Of course it’s so easy to laugh …… etcetera

Lots of people with addictive personalities are, because they're looking for fulfillment and it can only truly be found in spirituality.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

I think it's far more encouraging to see people who have struggled and made mistakes come to Christianity than people who were just always a Christian because it seems more of a genuine journey. Russell seems to be the exact sort of sinner christ would have loved. I for one heartily welcome Russell into the fold.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

I think it's far more encouraging to see people who have struggled and made mistakes come to Christianity than people who were just always a Christian because it seems more of a genuine journey. Russell seems to be the exact sort of sinner christ would have loved. I for one heartily welcome Russell into the fold.

Yes, and I'm sure Jesus will love Russell Brand. This is one of my biggest problems with Jesus. The parables of the workers in the vineyard and the prodigal son are no bueno. Jesus seems to love dissolute people who repent late in life more than he loves lifelong pious people who devote even their youth to him (which is really the greatest sacrifice you can make, because it's pretty easy to say, "I'll be chaste, now that I'm pushing fifty").

"The last will be first, and the first will be last." God's reply to any criticism on this point is: "Am I not free to do as I wish? What is it to you?" Gee whiz, God, I don't know—maybe a basic sense of fairness, to begin with. Nietzsche was right: this is a religion almost specifically designed for wayward losers and the scum of the earth.

 

[On his way out]

Yes, and I'm sure Jesus will love Russell Brand. This is one of my biggest problems with Jesus. The parables of the workers in the vineyard and the prodigal son are no bueno. Jesus seems to love dissolute people who repent late in life more than he loves lifelong pious people who devote even their youth to him (which is really the greatest sacrifice you can make, because it's pretty easy to say, "I'll be chaste, now that I'm pushing fifty").

"The last will be first, and the first will be last." God's reply to any criticism on this point is: "Am I not free to do as I wish? What is it to you?" Gee whiz, God, I don't know—maybe a basic sense of fairness, to begin with. Nietzsche was right: this is a religion almost specifically designed for wayward losers and the scum of the earth.

Definitely no preference for the longtime sinner, as made clear in the parables you mention. Anyway the sinner actually needs to repent, to turn away from scummish loserism before their unknown end. And remember...

the DAY of the LORD cometh, like a THIEF in the NIGHT

 

[gashonthenail]

"The last will be first, and the first will be last." God's reply to any criticism on this point is: "Am I not free to do as I wish? What is it to you?" Gee whiz, God, I don't know—maybe a basic sense of fairness, to begin with. Nietzsche was right: this is a religion almost specifically designed for wayward losers and the scum of the earth.

I think you have described why Christianity became so popular.
There is also something very childlike about religions like Christianity and Islam. The Gospels are powerful 'brain worm' fairy tales. Goebbels could never have dreamt up better propaganda. And Islam is all about certainty. No need to think for yourself. Get down on your knees and submit to Allah. Do as you are told.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Definitely no preference for the longtime sinner, as made clear in the parables you mention.

In the parable of the workers, the latecomers who worked only a few hours are paid the same wage as the early hires who busted their humps for the entire day. The bible makes clear this is an entire day's wage being paid to both, not an hourly wage. How is that not showing a preference for the latecomer?

Anyway the sinner actually needs to repent, to turn away from scummish loserism before their unknown end.

Right, and conveniently that can be put off even until one's deathbed. Meanwhile, say someone keeps the faith from his youth. He enters a monastery at 16 and lives a virginal life of piety and prayer. In his sixtieth year he goes into the city to meet a publisher about a devotional book he's written. On his way he meets a seductress (Proverbs 7). He sins with her, and leaving her apartment building, he's killed by a falling piano before he can even think about repenting and confessing. Punishment: hell. You're telling me this is fair?

 

[On his way out]

In the parable of the workers, the latecomers who worked only a few hours are paid the same wage as the early hires who busted their humps for the entire day. The bible makes clear this is an entire day's wage being paid to both, not an hourly wage. How is that not showing a preference for the latecomer?

Becuase they are both receiving the same reward. I would read the parable as the reward being heaven, as with the prodigal's son similar whingeing about his brother's party.

Right, and conveniently that can be put off even until one's deathbed.

No, because inconveniently you don't know when you will be called away, as Soul Brother No 1 bellowed and as you point out below in the parable of the seductress by the steinway.

Meanwhile, say someone keeps the faith from his youth. He enters a monastery at 16 and lives a virginal life of piety and prayer. In his sixtieth year he goes into the city to meet a publisher about a devotional book he's written. On his way he meets a seductress (Proverbs 7). He sins with her, and leaving her apartment building, he's killed by a falling piano before he can even think about repenting and confessing. Punishment: hell. You're telling me this is fair?

I have said before there is a tension between justice and mercy. But honestly, it's not complicated- don't sin!

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Becuase they are both receiving the same reward. I would read the parable as the reward being heaven, as with the prodigal's son similar whingeing about his brother's party.

Yes, it is the same reward—for different amounts of effort. That is unfair. I'll grant that their respective times in purgatory would balance the ledger, but it's curious that Jesus didn't take the opportunity to teach the doctrine. The landowner doesn't tell the grumblers, "friends, they will make up the rest of their wages in a different plot tomorrow. You yourselves have earned well." Instead he revels in his arbitrariness, tells them to get lost, and expresses a preference by saying, "the last shall be first."

No, because inconveniently you don't know when you will be called away, as Soul Brother No 1 bellowed and as you point out below in the parable of the seductress by the steinway.

Good point. I was only using the deathbed convert as a specific example of the bare minimum; more broadly it applies to any libertines who convert or revert later in life, just as the monastic was a stand-in for the comparatively pious and committed.

I have said before there is a tension between justice and mercy. But honestly, it's not complicated- don't sin!

That would be a lot easier if God hadn't put his thumb on the scale by cursing us with concupiscence. An entire life of faith can be nullified by indulging a single whim, and an entire life of debauchery can be redeemed by a single moment of regret.

If the point of this existence is to pass a trial that will take place at a random unexpected time, and if you're innately inclined to sin, then that's a pretty dire lottery and I don't think it qualifies as fair. Not to mention that some get an instantaneous car crash, and others get a cancer diagnosis with palliative care and plenty of time to reflect.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

The last shall be first..

The meek shall inherit the earth …

Hmmm, seems to be a pattern here.

Sounds like a shit stirrer to me.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Yes, and I'm sure Jesus will love Russell Brand. This is one of my biggest problems with Jesus. The parables of the workers in the vineyard and the prodigal son are no bueno. Jesus seems to love dissolute people who repent late in life more than he loves lifelong pious people who devote even their youth to him (which is really the greatest sacrifice you can make, because it's pretty easy to say, "I'll be chaste, now that I'm pushing fifty").

"The last will be first, and the first will be last." God's reply to any criticism on this point is: "Am I not free to do as I wish? What is it to you?" Gee whiz, God, I don't know—maybe a basic sense of fairness, to begin with. Nietzsche was right: this is a religion almost specifically designed for wayward losers and the scum of the earth.

this goes back to what i said about jesus being an amoralist. you just have to accept that he doesnt ascribe to the same metrics as you. i imagine whining about 'fairness' is really so pedestrian and distasteful in the eyes of god. what is important to him is the poetic element. the poetic element cannot exist without strife and error, nor is it something whose formula exists and can be discerned on paper. it is something that can only be detected in each individual and only god/jesus is the ultimate authourity on who has it and who doesnt. (although for those who have it, they know, and those who dont they cant even understand what it is).

 

[Lucifer Sam]

this goes back to what i said about jesus being an amoralist. you just have to accept that he doesnt ascribe to the same metrics as you. i imagine whining about 'fairness' is really so pedestrian and distasteful in the eyes of god. what is important to him is the poetic element. the poetic element cannot exist without strife and error, nor is it something whose formula exists and can be discerned on paper. it is something that can only be detected in each individual and only god/jesus is the ultimate authourity on who has it and who doesnt. (although for those who have it, they know, and those who dont they cant even understand what it is).

This is all fine as a novel elitist theology, but it's strange that you were welcoming Russell Brand "into the fold" earlier. He is not joining your peculiar gnostic sect where "god/jesus" is an amoralist. Brand says "we have no choice but Christ" because we need a sense of "right versus wrong," which are moral value judgements. His Jesus is the one in the gospels, who never once utters the phrase "poetic element" and frequently frames behavior in moral categories: righteousness and sin. Brand's Catholic Jesus is going to judge everyone at the end of the world on the basis of whether they held the faith and did good works, not on whether they had some mystical je ne sais quoi.