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.