Oh, right. That religion of peace.


That Bryan Fischer — always speaking the Truth to the People. Lately he’s been explaining that Jesus would have been pro-torture, and expounding on the fundamental nature of Christianity.

"Christianity is not a pacifist religion," Fischer said. "The God that we serve is described in Exodus 15 as a ‘man of war.’ Now we often think of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, but let’s not forget, according to Romans 19:13, when he comes back … he will be riding a white horse and wearing his own robe, dipped in blood. That is a robe that is worn by a warrior who is inflicting casualties on the foe. So this is gentle Jesus, meek and mild; when we comes back, his robe is going to be dipped in blood because he too is a warrior."

His Mom isn’t going to be happy getting stuck with the washing, I bet.

Comments

  1. dianne says

    Sorry, but I’m not sure I’m buying this one. Jesus has huge holes in his hands and feet. The blood might well be his. Plus the only time I remember him getting violent in the actual gospels is the bit about the moneylenders in the temple. The blood of a million corrupt bankers…I could deal with a god with that on his robes.

  2. Rob Grigjanis says

    He was a libertarian as well.

    “Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
    Fucking moochers.”

  3. tulse says

    Wait, isn’t the Christian god supposed to be omniscient? What does God need with a waterboard?

    Then again, there’s that whole “hell” thing, so maybe it isn’t to get information, but just for kicks.

  4. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Ah yes, the religion whose supposed leader said “kill them all, and let god sort it out”. Peace *snicker*, unless it is the peaceful rest of the dead.

  5. says

    . Lately he’s been explaining that Jesus would have been pro-torture

    Well yeah: he had himself nailed to a plank, believing for not apparent reason that it was a sensible way to send a message of alleged mercy, (maybe he was out of post-it notes), and is perfectly fine with torturing anyone who thinks that such behaviour is illogical and/or unbelievable.

  6. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Rob, #2:

    “For whateth wouldst happen should the sun withhold her glow? Should she simply decline to engageth in fusion? The lilies wouldst die, having learnethed nothing of making one’s own wealth, but rather haveth become dependent on redistribution.”

  7. kevinv says

    Jesus commits one act of violence in the bible: against capitalists.

    He heals a solider attacked by one of his followers, hands out free socialized wine. Yeah, way to read that book.

  8. khms says

    #4 Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Ah yes, the religion whose supposed leader said “kill them all, and let god sort it out”. Peace *snicker*, unless it is the peaceful rest of the dead.

    Actually, according to Wikipedia, it was “just” his legate:

    According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, Arnaud-Amaury, when asked by a crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered: “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” – “Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his”. On the other hand, the legate’s own statement, in a letter to the pope in August 1209 (col.139), states:

    while discussions were still going on with the barons about the release of those in the city who were deemed to be Catholics, the servants and other persons of low degree and unarmed attacked the city without waiting for orders from their leaders. To our amazement, crying “to arms, to arms!”, within the space of two or three hours they crossed the ditches and the walls and Béziers was taken. Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt, as divine vengeance miraculously…

    Not that it makes all that much difference for the “religion of peace” business …

  9. jrfdeux, mode d'emploi says

    Why would omnipotent, omniscient Yaweh need to wage war on humanity? Or send his son to do so? Couldn’t he just snap his fingers and we’d all disappear in a puff of caprice?

    Something’s fishy.

  10. says

    WWJT Who Would Jesus Torture?

    Apparently the mormons who did a lot of the torture themselves, (hands on they were!), those two psychologists, they knew who Joseph Smith would torture.

  11. jrfdeux, mode d'emploi says

    Caitie Cat, way to skew my observations. Here I was thinking I was on to some shenanigans! I was all proud and everything.

  12. says

    I’m with St Bill of Hicks on this one. Jesus will come back and wonder what’s up with all the weirdos having an icon of torture around their necks.

  13. says

    I mean, of course, the Book Of Revelations. Not just the occurence of religious revelations in general. Those would be far too conflicting to get us anywhere in this discussion :P

  14. Ichthyic says

    If we’re trying to guess what Jesus thinks of violence, do we count revelations as canon or not?

    If we’re trying to guess what Harry Potter thinks of violence, do we count the last movie or not?

  15. Ray, rude-ass yankee (Whimsy, I has it) says

    consciousness razor@15,
    Their god is a jellyfish? That would explain why it’s so poisonous and it adds to those “mysterious ways” they speak of.

    chigau@19, Hi!
    Don’t lose your head… (over torture).

    Reference to my most favoritest movie EVAR!!! Joy of Joys!
    (But only the first one, the rest never happened an we will speak of them not.)

  16. Ichthyic says

    Revelation, the Book of, is singular.

    for some weird reason, it’s common practice in religious circles to list books in the plural, because it is usually in reference to the chapters, plural, within it.

    hence I grew up hearing “Revelations” in reference to the various chapters within it. don’t know if that is some strange protestant thing, but it’s something a lot of us were taught.

    don’t ask me why they didn’t pluralize “Job” or “exodus”. that would ask me to force some weird consistency on it.

    ;)

  17. twas brillig (stevem) says

    Why would omnipotent, omniscient Yaweh need to wage war on humanity? Or send his son to do so?

    To teach us a lesson! “He who lives by the sword, must die by the sword” He uses our style of battle to show us how brutally painful it is.

    Couldn’t he just snap his fingers and we’d all disappear in a puff of caprice?

    Yes, of course he _could_, and that would be the most merciful. To just zap us out of existence instantaneously. That way no one would feel any pain or suffering, etc. But to teach us something we must have the time to think about it and regret our previous actions. That’s what Hell is for to give even the slowest thinkers time to regret their actions. The doomsday John Prophesied is exactly the proper form of Retribution for all our bad deeds.
    .
    Us, atheists, can counter that John just wrote down his horrific drug induced “bad trip”, calling it Revelation, attributing to Gawd, his hallucinations, rather than investigating the drug bearing spores in his cave.

  18. unclefrogy says

    man I spent some time thinking about all of that and it just kept getting weirder and weirder. God made the earth and the universe out of what. in the beginning there was nothing but god so he must have made it out of god. then he set out a impossible test which we failed naturally so history is then filled with pain, suffering and death. He makes himself be born of a woman so he could be tortured and killed so we could live with him for ever? then later he will return with a sword and kill us or send us to hell to be tortured for ever if we are not among the perfect ? The whole thing is made up out of his own existence and exists because he said so?
    and the point is?
    uncle frogy

  19. says

    Yeah, religion is the source of morality and goodness all right.

    Why would omnipotent, omniscient Yaweh need to wage war on humanity? Or send his son to do so? Couldn’t he just snap his fingers and we’d all disappear in a puff of caprice?

    Something’s fishy.

    And he wants that spaceship. NOW!

    Even Laurence Luckinbill saw through that one eventually.

  20. says

    For every hippie peace jesus quote you can give, there’s another war monger quote. “I came not to bring peace” and whatnot. The book is whatever the reader wants it to be.

  21. Moggie says

    Does it say what colour that bloody robe will be? Because, you know, if it’s Cephalopod Jesus it’ll be blue.

  22. anym says

    Y’know, that sentiment sounds familiar.

    My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison

  23. johnhodges says

    I have never understood why people regard the “Book of Revelation” as valid revelation. The Catholic Church declared it so, but why?

    Well, never mind. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are consistent with each other, John is starkly different from them. John was written later, after Jesus’ generation had passed away. If the flock could be persuaded to take John as valid, they’d believe anything.

  24. david says

    Revelation 19 –
    12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.
    13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

    Fisher only quoted the part the he likes. If you read both lines 12 & 13, the one supposedly wearing the robe dipped in blood is not Jesus. No one knows his name but he himself. Whereas we all know JC’s name, so it can’t be him.

    Whenever a nutcase quotes the bible to show something that doesn’t make sense, it’s worth going back to the source because there is often a different interpretation possible.

    The bible: supporting multiple conflicting viewpoints since the dawn of modern civilization. Now in new improved version, with more hypocrisy.

  25. Moggie says

    david:

    He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.

    “Dude, what’s with that tattoo?”
    “It’s my name, in Chinese! Cool, ain’t it?”
    “Uh, no, dude, it says something like ‘stupid drunk person can’t read this'”
    “Fuck!”

  26. Howard Bannister says

    david@38

    If we engage with the whole rest of the chapter it’s pretty definitively supposed to be Jesus.

    But he has a secret name we’re not allowed to know. His True Godly name.

    You know. Like in EarthSea. It would give us power over him.

  27. Doug Little says

    he will be riding a white horse and wearing his own robe, dipped in blood. That is a robe that is worn by a warrior who is inflicting casualties on the foe.

    Sounds like Putin…. you don’t think… do you?

  28. Moggie says

    I’m sure you could find something in Revelation which could stand for the collapse of the rouble.

  29. U Frood says

    Is he going to own up to the atrocities of the flood and the 10th plague? And the horrible thing the Israelite armies did while conquering the Promised Land from the heathens who had the nerve to already be living there?

  30. Nick Gotts says

    Matthew, Mark, and Luke are consistent with each other – johnhodges@37

    Compare the birth narratives and genealogies in Matthew and Luke: not even close.

  31. robro says

    david @#38

    “…it’s worth going back to the source because there is often a different interpretation possible”

    Good point, but strictly speaking we have no sources. Only later renditions.

    “The bible: supporting multiple conflicting viewpoints since the dawn of modern civilization. Now in new improved version, with more hypocrisy.”

    Probably compiled, edited, written and rewritten to support many viewpoints in the first place, viewpoints that were changing and often in conflict over the several centuries that it took to get to the form we have.

  32. peterh says

    “…when he comes back … ”

    Whatever happened to that ‘many of those standing here’ and ‘before this present generation ends’ business? Prediction is not their strong suit, either in the canonical gospels or the lunatic ravings of a hermit who can’t even write proper Greek.

    @ chigau: There were indeed other apocalypses that early church figures squabbled over but which did not make the cut.

  33. Nick Gotts says

    anym@44,

    Not if you’re a fictional character: Tolkien says nothing about Gandalf changing out of his flowing garments – let alone trimming his beard – before battle.

  34. Kevin Kehres says

    @37 johnhodges

    The synoptics are “consistent” with one another because one author cribbed from another who cribbed from another, who cribbed from an entirely separte (and lost) source.

    It’s like when you copy-pasta’d that term paper and then “embellished” it a little so that people who weren’t paying that close attention wouldn’t know that you basically stole it.

    Mark copied from the Q document, Matthew copies from Mark, Luke copies from Matthew. Viola! “Consistency”.

    And, of course, the names of the authors on the books are “by tradition” — meaning totally made up fiction. So, any claim that Matthew or Mark or Luke was even a real person is unprovable.

    And the gospels didn’t appear until well after the Pauline documents…and Paul seems to be totally unaware that they existed. So, quite obviously not written anywhere near the lifetime of the alleged events. Especially since the fall of Jerusalem is mentioned in Luke (as a “prophecy”) — and that didn’t happen until 70 CE.

    All-in-all, the synoptics are more like fan fiction than anything else.

  35. David Marjanović says

    Revelation, the Book of, is singular.
    There can be only One.

    It’s specifically the Revelation to John, as opposed to the Revelation to Peter which was considered canon or nearly so for a long time – that’s where all the popular depictions of hell come from, Dante’s for instance.

    Apparently the Revelation to John is only canon because people confused that John with the evangelist…

    hence I grew up hearing “Revelations” in reference to the various chapters within it. don’t know if that is some strange protestant thing, but it’s something a lot of us were taught.

    Huh. Maybe it’s an English-language thing, or an American thing; it’s always singular in German, for Catholics and Lutherans alike.

    Compare the birth narratives and genealogies in Matthew and Luke: not even close.

    I once got to stump Jehovah’s Witnesses with that ^_^

    Probably compiled, edited, written and rewritten to support many viewpoints in the first place, viewpoints that were changing and often in conflict over the several centuries that it took to get to the form we have.

    That’s pretty obvious from reading it.

    Mark copied from the Q document, Matthew copies from Mark, Luke copies from Matthew.

    No, the idea is that both Matthew and Luke copied both from Mark and from Q, but a newer idea is that Q didn’t exist, Matthew copied from Mark and “improved” it, and Luke copied from Matthew and “improved” it even further.

    Viola!

    That’s a violet, and not in French either.

    Voilà. Voi là, “see there”.

    And, of course, the names of the authors on the books are “by tradition” — meaning totally made up fiction. So, any claim that Matthew or Mark or Luke was even a real person is unprovable.

    Though the name “Mark” fits with the fact that some of the peculiarities in his Greek make sense as too literal translations from Latin.

    All-in-all, the synoptics are more like fan fiction than anything else.

    Mark’s appears to be a remake of the Iliad & Odyssey with deliberately updated values, with a hero that fit the expectations and aspirations of the time much better. (And with a happy end.)

  36. says

    hence I grew up hearing “Revelations” in reference to the various chapters within it. don’t know if that is some strange protestant thing, but it’s something a lot of us were taught.

    I think it’s more of a loony-apocalyptic thing: “Revelations” is plural because they’re not just thinking of that one book, they’re also thinking of all the most recent signs and visions and alleged salvation-events and miracles that prove that THIS time, it really is the end of the world like they’ve been “prophesying” all along.

  37. grewgills says

    The Christ of the red letter bible certainly would not be pro torture (of others). Christians on the other hand have a long and storied history of torture, so he has some fertile ground there. I’m guessing he doesn’t want to reference the Inquisition to justify a current torture regime though.

  38. vaiyt says

    I think it’s more of a loony-apocalyptic thing: “Revelations” is plural because they’re not just thinking of that one book, they’re also thinking of all the most recent signs and visions and alleged salvation-events and miracles that prove that THIS time, it really is the end of the world like they’ve been “prophesying” all along.

    Also, because the Bible has TWO Apocalypses – John’s and Daniel’s. (fundies love to jump back and forth between them to create their bullshit end of the world timelines)

  39. Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy says

    Yet more evidence that people create gods in their own image. There are no gods, but it tells me something when a man not only looks for a god of war, but eagerly proclaims that he worships a god of war crimes.

  40. Azuma Hazuki says

    Cruel Gods make cruel men and vice versa.

    The last 2000+ years of western history have been an endless, blood-drenched horror movie because the dominant religious belief is in a God who’s nothing but narcissism, authoritarianism, genocide, torture, and eternal burning from start to finish.

    This needs to be said, over and over and over, until people get it through their heads. It’s time we stopped being nice to Christians and Muslims, time we stopped “respecting their beliefs,” and time we got right in their disgusting, amoral faces and told them “Your God is a demon and may you and it both roast in your beloved Hell.”

  41. David Marjanović says

    Oh. I completely forgot about the apocalypse in the Book of Daniel. *shame*

    “Your God is a demon

    I prefer Dawkins’s wording: “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”.

    and may you and it both roast in your beloved Hell.”

    Frankly, I can’t wish that on anyone.