2000 years and very little change in the mentality of some Christians.
This man's art was depicting Dionysus. He used him as a metaphor for his fight against alcoholism.
The man's art was good enough to be posted in a public square.
Complaints by people who didn't know who Dionysus was and that he looked "Satanic" and thus was not suitable for public viewing made the city take the painting down. At least one man in the article prefers to stay ignorant as far as ancient Greek religion is concerned and use his ignorance as religious leverage.
Mind you, had anyone painted a Jesus on the cross in their artwork, no one would have complained.
I don't think the pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution either. I think they left England to escape persecution of anyone who might challenge or disrespect the authority of the feudalist Monarch in any way. It was like escaping a Hellish environment that was created by the catholic church.
What they didn't realize, is that they were jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. So yes, the pilgrim inhabitation of America is one of the highest of the holy grail of hypocricy of the Christian legacy, along with slavery. It wasn't just because of their migration, it was because of the way it evolved. Because what it evolved into was basically an invasion of Europeans in general, in all four corners of the territory. It amounted to nothing more than imperial conquest.
As well intended and civil as the constitution was, if America was founded on Judeo Christian principles, just look at the entire history of the religion, rather than giving attention to a bunch of mindless modern squishes who got comfortable in life, not because of their bible and their religion, but because of science and capitalism
What would Jesus do? ha ha ha ha...I don't know, why don't you ask HIM? Teach a man to fish, I suppose.
But when you find that the ancient jewish monarchs kept slaves, so much for slavery.
I guess some people would say you hate America if you drag out all our dirty laundry.
From the Washington Post:
It’s fair to say that the Pilgrims left England to find religious freedom, but that wasn’t the primary motive that propelled them to North America.
Remember that the Pilgrims went first to Holland, settling eventually in the city of Leiden. There they encountered a religious tolerance almost unheard of in that day and age. Bradford and Edward Winslow both wrote glowingly of their experience. In Leiden, God had allowed them, in Bradford’s estimation, “to come as near the primitive pattern of the first churches as any other church of these later times.” God had blessed them with “much peace and liberty,” Winslow echoed.
If a longing for religious freedom had compelled them, they probably never would have left. But while they cherished the freedom of conscience they enjoyed in Leiden, the Pilgrims had two major complaints: They found it a hard place to maintain their English identity and an even harder place to make a living. In America, they hoped to live by themselves, enjoy the same degree of religious liberty and earn a “better and easier” living.
And the Pilgrims were living at the time of Cromwell in England! And Cromwell WAS a Puritan. Just goes to show how radical the beliefs of these Pilgrim/Puritan were that they felt they had to leave England!
I'm sure that religious freedom must have been on their agenda, and the reason I say that is ANY interpretation or translation of biblical text that did not align itself with the generic interpretations of the King James version would have certainly been considered heresey or blasphemy, punishable by death or torture.
The pilgrim migration simply opened pandora's box for the later influx of armed militias that fought the Indians, and each other, for control of the territory.
Relgion was only the primary tool that the monarchy used to galavanize it's draconian control over the population. But they didn't need to wait for King James to come along to keep the party rolling!
On the short list, in 15th century Italy that monster executioner would have been the pope himself, issuing orders to his lower level executioners. If anyone doesn't believe that , ask Galileo. Only Galileo got off easy because of his fame and stature.
In 12th century France it was the Free Masons and the Knights Templar and the sigil of "Baphomet" that drove them into a tizzy. I think that "deals with the Devil" had their orgins there.
Civilization apparently has evolved since then. But the astronomical numbers of the dead and tortured under christianity can never be calculated.
The problem with toying with jesus is that jesus spoke in terms of "otherworldly affairs". Think of it this way; if everyone did what jesus asked them to do, it would have been a perfect world, hypothetically or theoretically. It also would have been the end of human civilization. The Christos were confused between the Devil, and the laws of nature that have an effect on human behavior. That confusion is evident everywhere we look today.
So we could conclude that the laws of nature came down on the side of the Devil. The "otherworld" was the transition point for christians who looked beyond the world as it is.
Since then the christians have learned to control themselves, and the Muslims have become the "bad boys". There will always be this subtle backbiting and hostility by those who think they have the upper hand in the argument.
The Coptic Christians were said to be the real christians, who were the original "christopagans"/ The rest of it is mired in willy nilly superstition and maudlin emotional melodrama.
This is an interesting read, and here we learn a few things about the King James VERSION, bold in the body is to draw the points out;
The King James Bible, published in 1611, was produced by six teams of translators, known as “companies,” in London, Oxford and Cambridge, who were charged with creating an authorized version that would support the Church of England against the Puritan influence seen in some earlier translations."
King James ordered the translators working in the 6 teams working in London, Oxford, and Cambridge [to] produce a version that addressed the needs of the English Church. The King wanted an ‘authorized’ version of the Bible that would support the English Church over Puritan influence in earlier texts.”
The King James Bible is the English translation of the Christian Bible made for the Church of England which begun in 1604 and was completed in 1611. The books of the King James Version contain the 39 books of the Old Testament, as well as a whole section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha, and the 27 books that make up the New Testament."
It's real easy to see how they wanted a specific "translation" that supported THEIR church and addressed their NEEDS, and to counter the puritan and other influences. That opened the door to pick and choose and editing to suit an agenda, since the KING ordered the teams to do the work and paid them or whatever, no one would have dared do anything he would have objected to, whatever he wanted IN the text or removed was certainly done. There was also an agenda to control the sheeple of the era, keep them living in FEAR, subservient, obedient, and paying huge amounts of money to the King's CHURCH.
Modern christianity is nothing more than a swamp of intellectualism that is held hostage by texts such as the King James version. The King James version is the best testamonial to the fact of how these texts were trampled on, fabricated, and watered down over 2500 years to suit the socio/politcal framework of the day, whenever that was. My theory is that the early christians wre tolerated during the Roman Empire, and not the Byzantine Roman Empire, because of their earliest ties to paganism, which began in Egypt. The fact is that the christians were tolerated in Rome and that is what enabled them to survive. In fact, they were far more tolerated than they were persecuted, and it took the conversion of the last Roman emperor to christianity on his death bed in order to guarantee that christianitys stature would remain as a major religion in Rome, especially the Eastern Roman Empire. This was 400 years AFTER Coptic christianity, for whatever it's worth, evolved in Egypt. You could say the same of the liberation of jews from captivity and slavery during the reign of Cyrus the Great in Persia, which was the final end of Babylonian captivity. Many of the fundamentalist ignorant arrogant modern christians and jews give no reconning to this. This is written into the early biblical texts, and of course, jewish scholars quibble with it to this day, some thinking that this order from Cyrus was a decree sanctioned by "god", when it was nothing more than a political stunt. The further desecration of the jewish temples after the Persian liberation was also considered to be an "act of god" for so called jewish transgressions that included a resonance with their early pagan roots.. So everytime they were caught having anything to do with paganism, some lunatic jewish "prophet" would have a nervous breakdown, and cry draconian vengeance from"god". I suppose they would consider their eradication of ancient paganism from Europe, via the European and Byzantine monarchies, and the creation of this monster they call "the pope" as an act of god as well, after their very existence was handed to them on a silver platter by the Romans.
And you know, two things come to mind right off, one was our involvement creating the state of Israel which was PALESTINE, the other is the "acts of god" they love to throw around as some kind of retribution or punishment consequence for being "bad"
One only has to look at historic maps to see that before 1947 there was NO "Israel" it was Palestine;Ive run into people who have actually said "there's no such place as Palestine or Palestinians, National Geographic proves otherwise.
The United States christians were behind the facilitating taking of the land and supporting the creation of this jewish state by force and political moves and look at the conflicts, hate and violence that still pervades this region even today over all this and our involvment! But then the long history of taking the land by force and murder from the Native Americans, doing it in 1947 to Palestine doesn't surprise me at all, nor does the violence and hate that resulted.
This rather goes back to the quote from the Thanksgiving myths" piece that any land that was not "improved" was inhabited by roving heathens and was theirs (the christians) for the taking.
So called "acts of god"...
One can't help but notice that the insurance companies all exclude so called "acts of god" from coverage, this includes floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, tonadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions and so forth, and then the christions exclude these violent often deadly natual events from anything their loving benevolent god would ever do unless it was "punishment" for "transgressions", so any terrible storm or earthquake that kills people is deemed some kind of rightious "punishment" and in the case of at least one politician I remember uttering the unbelievable crap to the media that some natural disaster in I seem to remember as California that killed people, was justified because they allowed same sex marriage and that was (their) god's punishment!!
On a tangent, you always see on facebook, news comment sections etc when someone- especially a child is very sick and dies, or someone is killed, they immediately come out with the "my prayers to them!" Or "praying for them now" or similar, forget for the moment that the person is DEAD, the prayers are as usual a dollar short and a day late.
If the person was horribly injured and is permanently, severely disabled and is facing spending the next 50-60 years blind, unable to even sit up because they are quadraplegics now and have to rely on 24/7 care from o thers, the christians are going like "oh thank god he survived that accident, what an awesome god we have!"
The crazy thing about that is, if you think about their beliefs and book, they claim after death there's this perfect eternal paradise, no sickness, disease, always sunshine, warm, rainbows, puppies and unicorns, yet, compared to that scene the earth is either hell or purgatory, so why would they want anyone to remain here on planet purgatory when they could be dead and go right into that perfect wonderful paradise! they should be praying and wishing the person in the hospital DOESN'T survive the horrific injuries so they can go there instead.
Then they mourn the dead with "oh how terrible, she passed away last night at only 78" when they should be celebrating that she went to perfect paradise instead of staying in purgatory riddled with arthritis, bad eyes pains etc!
They hold these dreadful, dark, depressing public funeral displays with everyone wearing black.
Something always told me these people really deep down subconsciously don't actually believe that eternal paradise myth, it's wishful thinking on their part and they have themselves convinced an old book written by men is how it is.
If they claim it's all about are mourning that they no longer see the departed person, even that doesn't make sense because their book and beliefs tell them they too will join that departed person in perfect paradise, and in a universal scope of a billion years or fifty billion years, 70 or 80 years of normal life on planet earth is but a minute insignificant blip of time by comparison, being apart from the deceased relative or friend for 20 years or whatever until they themselves joint them again is nothing compared to a billion years.
Even the Santa Claus lie taught to children always to me smacked of religion, the parallels are too connected to ignore, everything from no one ever seeing Santa, to flying in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, to being able to visit every home in the country via their narrow chimney in just one night. The little black book Santa records everything you do in so he'll know if you've been BAD or good, if you are "bad" you get NO presents because Santa knows everything about you, even bad thoughts are recorded in his little black book.
Sounds too much like Santa Claus was actually jesus claus in disguise, used to keep children living in fear of not getting rewards, and being controlled.
The entire history of the region is one of periodic millennial migration, thousands of years before the jews got to claim jerusalem as their settlement. That was before arabs, muslims, and jews, and the fact is that whoever settles there and lays claim to it happens to be whoever is there at any given point in time. It has always been a battleground of "no mans land"
A recent archeological study based on stone tablets that were uncovered and deciphered by JEWISH archeologists, confirmed that the isrealites learned writing from the Phoenicians sometime during the 9th century bce. That makes any claim of king davids building of the temple in jerusalem @ 1000 bc completely bogus. If they were building at that time, they were building mud brick huts, not magnificent temples.
How could they accomplish writing and building, two skills they absolutely learned, and got help from the Phoenicians, and all of a sudden have this so called magnificent temple and city state built at same time they were barely learning civilization? As well the writing of the bible? Another act of god I suppose...
It's like learning how to crawl before you learn how to walk.
There's NO evidence that the ancient Egyptians even knew who these people were.
Earliest estimates that make sense for any writing of biblical text should have been done around 5oo bce, during the Babylonian captivity, and that 's giving them a huge benefit of the doubt.
And furthermore, I don't know who these arabs think they are bullshitting, Palestine is a GREEK word.
The trouble is that anything that isnt clearly christian is satanic in their eyes.
Anyway, what does satan actually look like as the bible doesnt describe him. Even Jesus said the devil may appear as a being of light. The 'traditional' image of satan is taken from horned fertility gods in order to demonise their worship and sacre people away from their natural religions.
Satan is a title meaning accuser so to me it's a little iffy even Paul was called Satan by Jesus.
But I've always thought of "Satan" as a Seraphim. The talking snake in the garden could be a match for the fiery serpents (seraphim)described in the Bible. These Archangels where the closest to the throne and were said to love God the most.
But as for the "ruler of this World" I lean more towards Azazel, who was even over Semjaza who was the "leader" of the fallen angels (Watchers).
There are many images of traditional mythologies that fit the narrative. Physical images, even if they don't exist, are important to the psyche and the storylines.. There is a clear distinction between Satan and Lucifer. They are often mistakenly made out to be the same being. For anyone who is not familiar, Satan is mentioned in the old testament approx 5 times, give or take 1 or 2. Any mention of Lucifer is a farce, a misnomer.
Thanks to christians and their predictable and timely fabrications in the bible, changing the narrative to suit the sentiment of their readers at any point in time, historically as a political tool of oppression. When they were attacked by Stalin and Hitler, they simply got a good taste of what they delivered for thousands of years. The Catholic church jumped in bed with Hitler.
Of course, there is also confusion about "the morningstar" mentioned in the book of Isaiah, which is the only mention of Lucifer in the old testament. Traditional Luciferians view Lucifer as an acausal "light being" as an emanation of the Darkness of the cosmos, which follows the natural "structure" of the acausal universe. So, if jesus said that, he was simply mimicking to his lapdog followers what was known by earlier occultists and priests long before his existence. Drawing these connections and distinctions take time and research.
This is one of the bad habits that Christians have when projecting enmity toward their enemies or adversaries..To be clear, christianity needs an enemy to project their fear, superstition, and anger.
Their show of censorship and indifference toward those who they do oppose are just public displays they use to reinforce their so called "conviction" of being right, when everyone else is wrong.
If no enemy, how else could they keep floating the narrative of the war between good and evil? How can they keep seeing themselves as missionaries of good, when in reality they have traditionally been missionaries of evil. So, if anyone who reads the bible and takes it for face value, that is what they come up with, the myth of having to look like the good guys, the heroes. The better question is how else could they get a following if they don't come across as the boring stiffs that they really are.
The fact that people have become more civilized in the last 100 years or so has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christianity. This is where they have everyone duped. All the heretic variations of it have come into focus, not because of the draconian injustices they have projected on to their targeted captives throughout history, but who has the more politically correct interpretation of the big lie. Taking the moral highground has always been the easy road for them to follow, it's a philosophy mixed with a religion.
I have no doubt that those who practice this religion get the benefits from it that they seek. But it is fundamental idiocy in it's prime state to tell people that harsh injustice and punishment are part of god's way of teaching lessons to people. Most people look for leadership, and comforting words, to have that glorious looking, wealthy, smooth talking preacher in front of them, talking to them in a dumbed down fashion, in that thousand dollar suit. They worship money and material things. It's a collective emotional addiction that they have, because most people simply are not programmed to think for themselves.
Clearly, they have stolen all of their religious narratives from earlier mythologies.
For example, the fact that Jesus demanded that I worship him or go to hell, and that he didn't ask me whether I wanted his sacrifice for my "sins," really bothered me.
I never cared for that whole concept, that because of Adam and Eve's doings- everyone is born with a black "sin" mark they have to beg forgiveness for! This is like your grandfather stole something and was jailed for it, then your father, you and your son all have to serve time in jail TOO as punishment, makes loads of "sense" not!
I am reminded now for some reason of a fellow named Clifford who was in a party with his date in 1942, there was a fire, many people died, he managed to escape as did his girlfriend, but...
Clifford Johnson went back into the fire at the Boston Cocoanut Grove Lounge no fewer than 4 times in search of his date who unbeknown to him, had safely escaped already. Johnson suffered extensive 3rd degree burns over 55% of his body, and 1/2 of that was burned to the bone.
Johnson survived the fire, becoming the most severely burned person ever to survive his injuries at the time. After almost two years of torture and pain in a hospital, several hundred operations and skin grafts, he married his nurse and returned to his home state.
Johnson and his new wife went home to Missouri, soon he found steady work delivering fuel oil.
On Dec. 20, 1956, just 14 years after the fire he survived, Johnson's truck skidded off a road near Sumner, Mo., and burst into flames. Trapped, he burned to death in the cab of his truck in the fire.
I can't help but think- where was Cliffords' god when the flesh was burning off his bones, sure, he survived the fire and "lived" if you want to call it "living" and then after all that torture he died by burning to death in a stupid "accident" caused by some ice of all things.
I watched a video last night that very well shows what this religion has done to scores of people all because of some hysteria and obsession over "witches" and "demons." When you learn how people were tortured to "confess" and how the church and other stood to gain property and money of these victims, and how children accused people of witchcraft and so on, you can't do anything but get outranged about this so called "religion of peace", especially when it's aherants post on FB and elsewhere their comments about Islam being the "religion of peace" while overlooking their own religions' mass urder, torture, beheading, forced conversions and all the rest of the terrible atrosities they are screaming about "muslims" doing.