Chelmsford —The two Byam School mothers who made headlines around the country for protesting the school’s policy banning religious icons at a holiday fundraiser are pondering a lawsuit against the school district.
Kathleen Cullen, a Byam School parent said she and Kathy McMillan are working with the Liberty Counsel, a nationwide nonprofit litigation and policy organization specializing in religious freedom litigation and are considering filling a suit over the fundraiser’s policies.
Although the four-day fundraiser, which allows children to purchase non-denominational gifts priced from 25 cents to $2, ended last Friday, the women are considering suing on the basis of viewpoint discrimination, said Cullen.
…
While he said a law suit may seem extreme to some, the two women have no real alternative.
Here’s a great example of how dishonest and disingenuous the Christian Right can be. The school os obeying the law, and selling religion-neutral seasonal items to raise money for a good cause. All is well, until the religious Right steps in.
They want to sue the school for NOT giving religion a place at a secular table, at a secular event, for a secular cause. They “may have no real alternative” to suing.
Of course, another religion neutral entity is the Federal government, and if this idiotic lawsuit happens and holds true, the secular government would be guilty of the same crime as this innocent school, which is just trying to do good. They would be discriminating against Christians, Jews, and Muslims for NOT placing religious symbols on public land.
Churches are discriminating on the basis of “viewpoint discrimination” as well. Maybe I could sue a church, which pays no property taxes, for discrimination against atheists because all their displays are religious, and indeed, only their religion is included (you don’t find Muslim collateral in a church, so maybe they could join in).
What the hell is “Viewpoint Discrimination”, anyway? I don’t like you … because you’re a bigot? I don’t like you… because you’re a zealot who is willing to waste taxpayer money so you can get free publicity for your church? I don’t like you because you are willing to put a good charity event in danger because it obeys the law?
Guilty as charged! Viewpoint Discrimination is just another word for judging people for who they are — this is a GOOD THING and is the only thing on which someone should be judged!
“no real alternative”? You have got to be kidding me. These women are not victims in any way, shape, or form. The “alternative” is to stop this nonsense, drop the suit, and go home. Is it somehow mandatory for these people to shove their religion down everyone’s throat? This superiority complex shared by many on the religious-wrong has got to stop.
Viewpoint neutrality has a specific meaning in First Amendment law, especially when it comes to organizations like schools, which are allowed to block forms of speech that might otherwise be protected. So while it might be permissible for a school to bar political or religious speech during school hours, schools have to apply that bar to all religious and political speech equally, regardless of viewpoint. So no allowing students to wear pro-Republican t-shirts but banning pro-Democrat t-shirts, or in this case (not to say that I think these women are correct), the perception that Christian viewpoints are being barred while other religious viewpoints are allowed.
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, may they burn in their own hell.
Perhaps we should allow Christian themed gifts to be sold at this fundraiser…alongside Islamic, Jewish, Wiccan, Hindu, and Satanist gifts.
If this were the case I bet these two women, as if by magic, would suddenly grasp the importance of a governmental separation between church and state.
While the fundamentalists are shocked that they cannot proselytize their religion in public schools, any freethinker is shocked that ours, a supposed advanced society, is a chasm away from making common sense decisions on issues like eugenics and population control.
Eugenics is one of those “yikes” words that bring up the Nazi idea of the “master race”, but, nothing could be further from the truth. Eugenics is the common sense realization that saving children with birth defects and allowing them to reproduce is contaminating an already nasty gene pool. Throughout human history the weak have been weeded out by competition and disease, and the strongest and the healthiest have risen above. And our natural compassion drives us to give a chance at life to anyone who is born alive, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, the cold hard reality is that many defects are heretitary, and while medical science performs it’s heroic acts of compassion, it is also poisoning the gene pool, generation by generation. Simple fact of reason. If you doubt my sincerity, I believe that I should have been sterilized because I have ADHD, and so do my children. But, my point is that while eugenics is an absolutely necessary subject of discussion for the future of the human race, religious mental midgets keep it off the table of discussion. A moral issue they are unwilling to consider, despite it’s inevitable outcome.
While Mexico teaches us how to secularize marriage, China teaches us how to cap population. Admit it, the more mouths to feed, the more food required, the more energy needed to heat homes and transport workers, and if you believe anything about the global warming theory, the more of us there are, the bigger the carbon footprint. Yet, religion, as it has for centuries, encourages their brainwashed to fuck like rabbits and raise their children in the same brainwash. The reason is obvious, to expand their enslaved contributers, so big surprise, the subject of population control is another common sense subject that never reaches the negotiating table.
My point: The agenda of religion is driving our species toward extinction and our planet toward disaster. And a common sense argument is lost on them,because the idiots still think that the earth is a stage where some eternal conflict is playing out. I would laugh if it wasn’t so pathetic. Earth is a piece of dust in a sandstorm of the universe. If we become extinct, some other species will dig the petrified remnants of our bones out of the layers of rock and speculate about what caused our demise. Maybe we should make a monument out of stainless steel and cast into it the words, “Anihilated by the Ignorance of Religion”.
NeoWolfe
Strong religions will subdue weak religions that advocate peace,brotherhood etc.
NeoWolfe
You have inferior genetics. Kindly remove them from the gene pool.
It’s well known that religion not only hinders progression, but also has, at very least in modern times, worked against humanity as a whole.
But I really doubt the human race will go extinct anytime soon — at least not because of OVER-population. Within the next hundred years it’s plausible that a major collapse in society that would revert human advancement similar to the fall of Rome and the dark ages that followed can occur, but we will be anything but extinct.
Also I don’t think you can completely blame religion on this plausible upcoming “collapse.” Our monetary system that is constantly breeding greed and this “fuck the greater good” mentality has led to an incredibly wasteful, pollution-filled society in a world with finite resources. I also have no idea where you’re coming from with ‘religion being responsible for over-population;’ surpluses in food have always correlated to population booms throughout human history.
But don’t get me wrong: I agree, religion is extremely harmful to modern society. I just don’t think it is in the way you think.
Huh? Where’s the mystery? Christianity opposes effective birth control and this opposition has consequences for with respect to population control policy.
The over-population of our planet is its biggest threat.
And who decides what is a defect and what is not? What will your master race look like?
I guess I’m having trouble seeing how your secular eugenics is any different than sectarian genocide.
It’s been my experience that on the topic of eugenics, you can suggest to people that they have a genetic responsibility to the gene pool. In other words, you have to put the decision in the hands of the people. You cannot dictate who will and will not reproduce. Whether or not we can claim that reproduction is a “right” it is at least a right that the people are unwilling to have taken away, so the topic of eugenics will always make people feel like they’re being persecuted, and they will be if eugenics is enforced.
When it comes to population control I support a few things:
1. Genetic responsibility, adopt if there’s a high chance of you passing on a debilitating genetic disease to your children. This can only be socially encouraged, not legally enforced. (a lot of people do this already)
2. Tax policies that do not encourage “breeders” to game the system and live off of welfare. This is more difficult to implement without actually reducing the quality of life for the children, who are not the one’s at fault but will suffer the most for the irresponsibility of their parents.
3. Advertising and government sponsorship of surgical sterilization such as vasectomies. If you put a positive spin on it (all the fun, none of the responsibility) then people might be more likely to get the operations done. (Many countries already do this)
None of those suggestions are perfect, but I think that’s the most we could possibly do. But the point is, the choice has to be the individuals. It is societies place only to encourage reproductive responsibility, enforcing it would lead to some nasty human rights violations.
I also dispute the idea that overpopulation is the worst threat that religion poses on society. I think the simple fact that they value dogma over human life is the biggest threat. For instance, the catholic prescription against condoms is actually causing death in Africa due to HIV/AIDS. The church’s stance on homosexuality has lead to quite a few people being beaten and/or raped to death and in many countries it is still illegal to be homosexual. Their valuing dogma over human life has lead to countless human rights violations and it will continue to do so. It’s too bad we can’t charge the pope with attempted murder for telling people infected with HIV not to use condoms. If it is illegal to have unprotected sex without telling your partner you have HIV (because this is murder), then the pope is guilty of encouraging and endorsing illegal activity and is somewhat responsible for the commission of such acts.
So Dave, are you just playing dumb by ignoring and/or compartmentalizing the words you type in your very own post, or are you really…?
Could you please tell me which “holiday” the school was celebrating?
And gee, here I go again, having to remind atheists that attempting to establish a “values neutral” culture constitutes a value unto itself–therefore rendering it a self-defeating endeavor…
Get off your high-horse. There’s no such thing as a “secular event” when the purpose of that event is to celebrate a value. If anyone’s behaving like a bigot here it’s you: whining about people who are using your own legal tactics by exercising their constitutional right of recourse to the law.
Oh holy crap. Little mouse is losing it again. Values are now strictly the venue of the religious because…because why? Because fools like little mouse think everything of worth belongs to religion, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
JCC
I can’t determine what your point is. Please state it clearly if you can. I will bet that if you are able to state it clearly that none of what you wrote actually supports it. What a puddle of muddle!
I wish I could say I was surprised…
Ok, try it this way: the opening sentence in the article:
clearly indicates that the school is holding its fundraiser as part of a holiday celebration. My point is simple and obvious (but not obvious enough for some): which “holiday” is the school celebrating?—Hanukkah?, “Kwanzaa?”, the Solstice? We all know it certainly cannot be Christmas because that would violate the First Amendment. So, how can a school sponsor an apparently generic “holiday” fundraiser but prohibit items that denote a specific holiday? That’s the point, they CAN’T because if they discriminate against one, then they must discriminate against all, but they can’t do that because they’re doing it ostensibly for all the “holidays.” So, if they’re doing it for “the holidays” then logically they have to allow items from specific holidays, or they must re-designate their fundraiser.
And I will bet that you’ll claim confusion no matter how I describe it.
What a willfully ignorant individual!
You’re going to keep going on about value neutrality not working until someone explains this to you in a logical manner… and even then you’ll probably still do it. Let me attempt to explain.
Any rational person could see that we all have the same core values simply by the nature of our existence and the functions/requirements of our bodies/minds. When speaking of “value neutrality” we’re talking about supporting these core values, not supporting the lack of values as you have suggested. Some of these core values are: life, liberty, happiness, and security of property. There may be other values that support these, but these remain fairly constant across the board. That’s why they’ve made it into both the US and International bill of rights.
Part of the whole freedom thing is freedom of/from religion. State sponsored religion leads to discrimination. It is not appropriate for a public school (which is government sponsored), to use government money to appear to support/endorse any particular religion as this would be a violation of the separation of C/S.
Additionally, you can quote definitions and word origins all you like and they won’t matter. If you research the word “holy” you’ll find that it has it’s roots in words that mean things like whole, health and good luck. This is also where we get the phrase “hello”. None of which have specifically religious connotations. Even if the word originally was meant to refer to days with religious significance, it doesn’t mean that this definition holds now. As an example, the bible refers to bats as birds, flying insects are refereed to as fowl. This is simply because the terminology of the time used those terms when speaking of “beasts of the air”. So whole the words “bird” and “fowl” may have been used to refer to beasts of the air, it doesn’t mean that bats and flying insects are still considered birds/fowl by today’s language. What matters is the current definition, not the origin of the word nor any previous definitions.
Also, because the winter solstice is of solar significance, it can be said to be secular if there is no religious aspects connected to it. Just because other associate it with religion, doesn’t mean that everyone does. Indeed, I see no conflict with being irreligious and the celebration of the lengthening of the days. That being said, even if many of the aspects of this seasons do have Christian/Pagan origins, that doesn’t mean that they haven’t been stripped of their religious connotations. For instance, while Santa Claus might have Christian origins, he has been commercialized and been essentially stripped of the religious aspects of his image. Just like pieces of our language can change in definition over time, so can our practices and celebrations. This season has become more about consumerism than religion now anyhow. Consumerism being secular, it is perfectly acceptable for its wares to be solicited by the government and/or government funded organizations.
So, just because you and many others see this holiday season as having religious significance, it doesn’t mean that everyone feels the same. We cannot discriminate against these individuals simply because they do not share the same views as ourselves. It is also not considered immoral to coerce people to not discriminate. Indeed, not coercing them would be essentially the same as condoning/endorsing such immoral actions, which would be immoral.
That’s cute. I broach the topic, but I’m clueless as to what I mean by it…
Yes, because we both know how desperately I need your tutelage.
Really? Then why do you value the immoral and biologically aberrant behavior of homosexuality while I don’t? Does the “function” of your mind/body “require” you to value the practice of homosexuality so much that you’re willing to destroy the institution of marriage just to prove it?
That’s not what I suggested. If you’d actually try to comprehend what I write, you’d know that by “values neutral” I mean what you secularists mean: no preferred value over another. There’s nothing ambiguous about that, so please, if you’re going to continue to argue with me here, it would behoove you to remember that crucial point.
Yes, distinctly Christian values—though you twisted “pursuit of happiness” into the social-utopian value of (implied) deserved happiness.
Where is “freedom from religion enumerated in the Constitution?
And state sponsored discrimination against a religion leads to tyranny.
Who’s using “government money” here? It was a fund-raiser of private funds! This is just another attempt to portray the left’s false eisegeses of the Establishment Clause as the Framer’s unambiguous intent for an entirely secular society.
…meaning your mind is closed and nothing I can say will open it…
Oh wow, how convenient. So now even the meanings of words are relative—which makes perfect sense coming from a moral relativist… it doesn’t matter what you say it means, things change, so to suit my purpose, your usage is no longer in “vogue.”
Get a clue. Merriam-Webster’s Online second definition (after the first being “Holy day”) : holiday : a day marked by a general suspension of work in commemoration of an event
Stripped by who? So, just because you atheists have seen fit to strip Christmas of it’s “religious connotation” means that Christians must also just so we can get along in your social-utopian, “secular” society?
Wow, your hubris really knows no bounds does it? It’s amazing how you think you’re speaking for virtually everyone…
Get another clue sonny; Christians will never regard Christmas as just a “holiday” for “consumerism.”
Great! So does that mean you and your ilk will acknowledge and respect me and mine our Constitutional freedom to celebrate our faith anywhere, anytime?
Huh? You’re kidding, right? So, who gets to define what constitutes discrimination?
Please explain where/what your code of morality is derived from.
JCC
Gee someone who claims that lies are truth and truth are lies you sure seem sure of your own lies. It is a shame that you like all others create your own hell to serve in. May you roast in happiness with your beliefs
Hey, (as usual) nice job of actually addressing my post, point-by-point. Yep, your precise, laser-like, articulate and impeccably reasoned dismantling of my questioning of which “holiday” the school was celebrating and my assertion that a values-neutral culture is a contradiction in terms, is without peer. Your enormous economy of words and searing wordsmithery makes you a one-man Christian wrecking crew…
JCC
Gee do you mean that I am acting like you, in a number of post I have shown clearly that the apostles lied about baby Jesus and lied claiming a prophecy proven which was not and yet you ignore it. And you claim I do not answer your posts verbatim. What I ask is by what authority you claim to speak if it is on the authority of the bible then you claim the authority to lie.
No.
You neither “clearly showed the apostles lied [about anything],” nor did I ignore it.
Huh? I did? Where?
…and another nice dodge of addressing my original points to Dave, above.
So what is not clear? They lied
In Luke they go to Bethlehem to be taxed, Mary has the baby, And there was great fan fare with the shepherds spreading the word abroad. eight days later Jesus is circumcised and after Mary’s purification they went to Jerusalem where Jesus is proclaimed the Christ by Simeon. They then went back home to Nazareth and every year journeyed to Jerusalem for pass over. Verse 42 clearly says this was an ongoing ritual for Jesus was 12 at this time that they went and they had gone every year since his birth.
In Matthew Joseph, Mary and Jesus were in a house in Bethlehem, according to the wise men Jesus should have been around two years old, two years past the taxing recorded in Luke. It was their estimation that Herod used to kill all children under two in Bethlehem and in the coastal cities. Joseph is told to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt until the death of Herod. After the death of Herod, Joseph feared the son of Herod and turned aside into parts of Galilee. Joseph was returning home to Bethlehem in Judea before God told him in a dream to turn aside into Galilee where he came into and dwelt in Nazareth.
Let’s take it from the top, Matthew claims that Herod only found out about the new born king when the wise men showed up. But in Luke the shepherds were spreading the word abroad that the king was born a full two years earlier. No secret there and a big deal was made at the temple in Jerusalem when the infant Jesus was presented and Simeon declared Jesus the Christ, according to Matthew, two year old baby Jesus and family went into Egypt and stayed there until Herod died. According to Luke Baby Jesus and family lived in Nazareth and journeyed to Jerusalem every year for Passover which is where Herod lived according to Matthew Herod wanted Jesus dead so badly that he ordered the killing of all two year olds and younger in Bethlehem. But Jesus visited Jerusalem every year after birth for 12 years
This of course while Luke claims baby Jesus and family were happily living in Nazareth awaiting their next pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Passover while Matthew claims the mass murder of all children 2 years and younger was happening in Bethlehem while baby Jesus and family were hiding in fear in Egypt. These two stories are lies. Neither story has any evidence to back them and they contradict each other they are lies.
The Rama prophecy that is claimed to have been fulfilled by Herod’s killing of the children is a false claim and is a lie
Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, Mt 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
Jeremiah 31:15 Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not. Jer 31:16 Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. Jer 31:17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
This is a rule two prophecy, the author of Matthew tried to show that the killing of the children had been prophesied. It had not been, In Jeremiah, 31:16 and 31:17 God says the children would return home. Also the name of the prophet is not Jeremy.
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
I could find no reference in the Old Testament to, He shall be called a Nazarene. The closes I could come, was to Sampson the Nazarite. So either the author lied again or his reference was to Sampson not Christ. I consider this a rule three prophecy.
Wouldn’t all of this conflict disappear if we simply recognized that raising and educating children is not the proper function of government. If you take the “public” out of the schools, and just let parents pick and choose which school they send their kids to (and which schools they don’t send them to), then there isn’t any secluar/religious debate to worry about. Only free people making free choices.
While I would agree that we might be better educated if it were optional and performed by non-government schools. We happen to be a democracy (not really, but it still applies to my argument). Because we are supposed to be governed by the people, it would be irresponsible for the rulers of this country to be uneducated. Education must therefore be mandatory within a democracy, which cannot be properly implemented without a government-funded option. That being said, I also love the idea of secular private schools.
Quote from Nathaniel: “Education must therefore be mandatory within a democracy, which cannot be properly implemented without a government-funded option.”
Why? These are just assertions from authority (authority with self interest in promoting government schools).
So, all those uneducated people in the 18th century weren’t smart enough for representative democracy, but they somehow formed one. This country got by without government schools for decades, and somehow we can’t survive without them today. Have we become so stupid, less informed and incapable of fending for ourselves that we need an army of all powerful bureaucrats to dictate what is best for us and our kids?
And nobody but the rich will go to school. Moron!
Of course they could get by back then. In the 1700′s, all you needed to learn was how to shoot a rifle, or chop wood, or sew linens, or cook dinner. Education for public life, social life, science, politics, etc. was hardly necessary let alone accessible for most people. Nowadays, without a proper education, you can’t get by in this modern world. If you think private schooling is the only way to go, there’s a good reason so few were educated in much at all back in the day. Without government funded public schools, I’d bet that America would be a 3rd world country right now. I certainly feel that the system itself is extremely lacking and what public schools teach isn’t very sufficient these days (I seriously feel I learned almost nothing worth while in high school, all I did was get ready for 13th grade, err I mean college) but that doesn’t mean private options don’t exist. Course, good luck finding a secular private school…
So let me see if understand you. All parents are so stupid and irresponsible that they will not educate their children adequately to survive in the world unless enlightened people (like you) force them to do it at the point of a gun.
I think you need to study your history. Public schools didn’t come around until well into the 19th century, and then they were mainly used by protestants to try to eliminate catholic schools.
So Dave, you still haven’t cleared up which “holiday” the school celebrating…
So JCC you have not responded to the lies and deceptions clearly shown in the completely fallible bible of yours
To JCC
I thank you for finally responding to the lies post concerning baby Jesus and admitting that at least one contradiction does exist in the infallible bible, as with any dependency nothing can be done until one actually admits that there is a problem. I am proud of you.
In addition to being sub-literate, even moderate sarcasm clearly escapes you. I made no such admission. My exact words were:
Your pedestrian, confirmation-bias-driven eisegesis has once again held your already lacking reading comprehension hostage. Get a clue Junior; an inconsistency is hardly the same thing as a contradiction.
So, you’re a slow learner. No problem, I have all the time in the world…
And by the way, the word is fulfilled—not—“full filled”…
To JCC
Luke has baby Jesus and family living in Nazareth for 12 years and going to Jerusalem every year for Passover
Matthew has 2 year old Jesus and family running to Egypt for a period of time to avoid the mass killing of 2 year olds and under for which there is no historical evidence to support.
Matthew also falsely claims the fulfillment of a prophecy, but the actual verses had no relationship to the claimed killing of children in Bethlehem.
Inconsistent my arse, these are clear lies. They are clear contradictions.
JCC
Would you like to move onto the other lies yet?
To JCC
Ok let’s do Saint John.
And now I want to give the bible thumpers who might be reading this something to think about. Take a good look at the following passages,
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Jo 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jo 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Jo 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
John 21:20 says that Peter turned about and saw John whom Jesus loved, and after seeing John, Peter asks Christ who is betraying him (Christ) In John 21:21 it says that Peter sees John and asks Christ, what shall this man do. In John 21:22 Christ says John will wait until Christ returns.
In John 21:20 and 21:21 Peter is talking about someone betraying Christ and Our Saint John is indicated as being the betrayer and then guess what, In John 21:22 and 21:23 we completely get off the subject of betrayal and John starts talking about how he will live until the return of Christ. I have not seen Saint John walking the streets lately so I tend to believe that verses 20 and 21 are true.
I think Christ named John as a betrayer and that he also said how John would betray him, but either Saint John edited those verses out of the bible or one of the so called righteous men of God who later became church leaders edited them out, believing that the teachings of Saint John would give them a better chance to manipulate and control their congregations then the other so called Saints. And our good Saint Peter went along with the idea.
Judas may have betrayed Christ in life, but I have no doubt whatsoever that our Saint Peter and especially Saint John betrayed Our Lord Jesus in death, because they betrayed his teachings, so that they could have the standing and positions that the Jewish Religious Leaders had. They wanted to be highly esteemed in the eyes and minds of those around them.
And what did Our Lord Jesus teach, what is highly esteemed by men is an abomination in the eyes of God. Most of what the so called Saints recorded is probably true, but what do I say about Satan, that he will use just enough deception so that the truth may be used as a snare.
Sorry for the religious tones of this post it is from my book and I was still a Christian at the time.
Yes, let’s…
And as we’ll see, that’s the problem here: your demonstrable, abject lack of rudimentary cognition skills.
Oh, how embarrassing—for you! No he’s not. He says, “Lord, and what shall this man do?”—that’s not asking if John is “betraying him.” If you’d read (and were able to comprehend) the previous verses you’d realize that Jesus was describing Peter’s future fate to him: “when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”
No He doesn’t. He asks, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” That’s a propositional (i.e. “what if”) question, not a statement of prophesy. To put it in the modern vernacular (that perhaps even you can understand): “So what if I arrange it that John waits until I come again?—that’s between him and me—not him and you.”
Oh dear. Peter wasn’t “talking about someone betraying Christ” at all. Even a “4th grade” level of comprehension of that passage could determine that John was unmistakably identifying himself as the one who had asked Jesus, “Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?” at the Last Supper in order to clarify who Peter was referring to.
Are true?—surely you meant, are not true…Still, A: there is no “subject of betrayal,” B: John was obviously writing about a past event and he was clearly anticipating Christ’s return within his lifetime. This isn’t rocket science.
Given that you’re completely clueless about almost everything John was saying, I’m not at all surprised at your idiotic conspiracy theory.
So, like I said, where’d you get your “book” published, Elbonia? May I ask what the highest level of education you achieved?
To JCC
This conversation is claimed to have occurred after the claimed resurrection which means the story is even more of a fiction then the rest of the bible but as such if this claimed conversation occurred after the claimed resurrection then Peter could not have been referring to the last supper and Judas, for Judas had already betrayed Jesus and everyone already knew it. So this was a question about a new betrayer not an old betrayer. And Peter by his actions indicates that it is John who is the betrayer and wants to know how John will betray Jesus.
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Jo 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
This is clearly Jesus being asked by Peter who the betrayer is and what the betrayer will do. This has nothing to do with the previous statement of girding oneself.
You said:
Are true?—surely you meant, are not true…Still, A: there is no “subject of betrayal,” B: John was obviously writing about a past event and he was clearly anticipating Christ’s return within his lifetime. This isn’t rocket science.
No I meant are true. I believe that John identified himself as a betrayer to Jesus, John was not obviously writing about a past event because this was claimed to have been the 3rd visit of Jesus after his death so the past betrayer had already been identified as Judas. Though I do love you claiming that John clearly anticipated Jesus’ return within his life time which shows that John was wrong since Jesus has not been seen since he gave up the ghost on the mount.
Peter clearly indicate John as being the person that he suspected of being the betrayer and asked Jesus for verification. Either Jesus verified the betrayal and someone erased it or Jesus did not want to give the verification and spouted the mumbo jumbo about John living until Jesus’ return so that John would be able to betray him. But keep in mind that this whole story is fictional so this is simply an exercise in what ifs.
Yes everyone already knew Judas betrayed Jesus. John was simply reiterating the fact that HE was the one who HAD asked Jesus at the Last Supper who it would be—in order to make it unmistakably clear that he was referring to HIMSELF when he described Peter asking Jesus about him.
Here, the NIV makes that fact perfectly clear: “Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved [i.e JOHN] was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, ‘Lord, what about him?’”—meaning, “and what about John? How will he die?”
No, no, no, no, NO. This is amazing…you’re actually serious about this. NO ONE who can read beyond the 2nd grade level could possibly misconstrue that passage. This isn’t a personal shot, but you really are the densest person I’ve ever conversed with here.
Seriously, did you even go to High School?
To JCC
Only someone who has been under life long brain washing could fabricate such a lie as you have.
You’re just plain nuts.
Good bye.
To JCC
I was doing some research for a post to a Theist in another room and came across this.
Herod , also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (born 74 BC, died 4 BC in Jericho, was a Roman client king of Israel.[1] He is often confused with his son Herod Antipas, also of the Herodian dynasty, who was ruler of Galilee (4 BC – 39 AD) during the time of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. Herod is known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, including the rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Herod’s Temple. Some details of his biography can be gleaned from the works of the 1st century AD Roman-Jewish historian Josephus Flavius.
So Herod the great died 4 years before Jesus’ Birth, Herod’s son ruled from 4 years before his birth to 39 years after Jesus’ birth so according to this Jesus would have had to have stayed in Egypt for 37 years if he moved there when he was 2 years old, before attempting to return to Bethlehem and Joseph deciding to move to Nazareth.
So it would be impossible for Jesus to have spent his first 12 years living in Nazareth and journeying to Jerusalem 12 times for Passover as Luke claims if he spent 37 years after he was 2 years old living in Egypt. As Matthew claims. Sorry, but as the old saying goes it simply does not compute.
To JCC
Oh and let’s not forget the additional lie that Matthew told. He said that Herod the Father was alive at the time of Jesus’ birth, but Herod the Father was dead 4 years before little Jesus popped his mothers water. So another lie accounted for.
To JCC
Oh I did not notice the dodge, you referenced the NIV which was rewritten to cover the lie. Sorry JCC if it is not the KJV it is trash. All of the other versions of the bible are junk, you cannot say that the later versions are accurate while the KJV is not accurate, either the infallible truth of God is valid in all regards or the infallible truth of God is in fact invalid. The NIV is a crock
Oh, this is rich!
Are you attempting to remind us of the topic of this thread. (smile) sorry that I tend to leave topic when in regards to JCC, unfortunately I have no idea how to begin a thread that JCC and I can prove his religious beliefs to be false. Even though I joined American Atheists hoping that I could create a thread that would allow me to do just that. But no such luck, though supporting the American Atheists is worthy on it’s on.