needing religion or some magical being "watching" -- in order to "be good" is like doing one's job properly ONLY because someone is "watching" and keeping score.

it is inherently dishonest, imo. or the same as making a show of giving "alms" or "philanthropy" because everyone will KNOW about it, rather than giving help without need for acknowledgement or honor or reward.

the bottom line here is -- the US PENTAGON propaganda machine has been CAUGHT FLATFOOTED LYING -- for all the world to see.

this is fodder for al qaeda because it is EXAcTLY what binladen was among the reasons they attacked the USA...

"AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE in the MUSLIM LANDS"

now clearly being used as the "SWORD" of CHRIST to Proselytize, and "spread the word of the bible"

which is also part "westernization" of regions that the USA has NO BUSINESS meddling with.

and so -- it was after all - bin laden that spoke the truth...the USA HAS been militarily occupying muslim lands ..the USA HAS been trying to convert muslims ...the USA is the ONE that has been "destroying our way of life"......

"binban May 6th, 2009 12:54 pm

The non-existence of something requires NO proof. The person making a claim for the existence of something has the onus upon them to prove it. ... So. cite the exact historical and factual evidence for the existence of Jesus. There is none."

What about the New Testament texts that were written before year 100 A.D. or CE? I believe to recall having read that some of the NT texts were written after this year, but also think to remember having read that some were written by or around year 75, perhaps even a little earlier.

What about while the NT text writers wrote differently about Jesus, they all wrote about him? The Gospel of Thomas, or whatever the text is called, is very different from the others, and is rejected by the RCC or else all Western Christian churches, but the text speaks of Jesus and many of his sayings. I'm not familiar with any of those sayings, never having read or even seen a copy of the text, or if I am familiar with some, then I'm just unaware of this text being the or their source. But from what little I recall having read about the text, Thomas noted I think 100 teachings or sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. Did Thomas make up all of these teachings or sayings?

Did apostle Thomas really travel all of the way to India and then once he was there he established Christian churches? If he did, then would he have done this based on a fictional Jesus Thomas would've known to be fictional, if Jesus never existed, etcetera?

What about while Gnostics have strikingly different texts, some of which say Jesus was not of Jewish heritage, but instead was (they say) Essene or Essenian (spelling?), f.e., they still speak of Jesus of Nazareth? What about their Nag Hamadi or Hammadi (spelling?) library of texts that speak enough about Jesus?

I'm not an expert on this topic and know that in the RCC, f.e., we are taught that [faith] is not [fact], that if what we had was fact, then there'd be no need to [believe]; except for people who like to deny facts. On the one hand are faith, belief, while on the other hand there are facts and knowledge. We know what we believe, but belief is not involved when the subject is factual. This especially applies with regards to Jesus being Messiah, and it's [obvious] that this is a matter of faith. It's not something anyone can prove, or even disprove.

There are different things said by various groups and thinkers about Jesus, but they all one thing in common; they all speak of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Are all of these people, historical and those alive today, referring to someone who really never existed?

What other proof could we hope to find about his historical existence? After all, he was not a king, emperor, government official, rabbi of renown, etcetera, and I doubt that there is much proof that Mr and Ms X, Y, Z, ... of Nazareth existed back then either; ordinary people not having been much written about, when they were written about at all. And like dcrowe said, it's not likely that Jewish rabbis or Roman officials, f.e., would've bothered writing much, if at all, about Jesus. He was from the ordinary people of society, the poor, the lower economic class, etcetera. And I guess birth certificates weren't used much, if at all, 2,000 years ago.

Even if he really existed and we had tangible proof of this, however, this would not justify what these U.S. military soldiers and officers have been doing in Afghanistan. That Jesus existed, or not, cannot be used to justify what these military people have been doing. And it gives yet another awful example of so-called Christians; bringing, committing war of aggression for empire and then pretending to be kindly Christians, [again].

"dcrowe May 6th, 2009 2:43 pm

...

Dismissal of the passages in Josephus is only partially valid. It is without question that several passages in Josephus have been altered; however, what is not agreed upon is whether the entire reference to Jesus itself was added, or whether an extant reference to Jesus was altered. The alterations in question were clearly made to put in the mouth of a first-century Jew a definite attestation that Jesus was the messiah. However, that's a long, long way from being able to say that such a reference was added whole cloth when the surviving versions (the Western Vulgate and the Arabic versions) include some version of a reference (if there are other versions I'm not aware of, please correct me here)."

Interestingly argued.

Western Vulgate? From what I've read, I believe this Bible is actually called the Latin Vulgate.

And, yes, there is another version of the Bible. The RCC, f.e., has the Jerusalem Bible, now the new edition, which is called the or The New Jerusalem Bible, which is the official Bible of the church and unlike the Latin Vulgate is supposed to be wholly based on only the original Hebrew and Greek texts. I've read that some other versions of the Bible are also based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but I forget what these books are called.

I don't think the NJB is wholly accurate in its interpretations or translations, some things not making much sense; having been written or interpreted by humans with a particular experience in life, upbringing, education, ... causing them to interpret in odd ways, say. But the NJB and the first version of it are supposed to be wholly based on the Greek and Hebrew texts. There's much in common with the Latin Vulgate, but the LV has what appear to be insertions added by (I guess) church "fathers", who evidently had a poor way of understanding society, life, and perhaps politics. Or maybe these aren't insertions, per se, but very poor interpretations, instead. Or maybe both; if not probably.

One example is the Commandment about killing. The RCC has taught and I guess still teaches that this law says "Thou shalt not kill", but (from what I've read) Jews and Protestant Christians say the law is "Thou shalt not murder", allowing that killing is sometimes necessary in order to defend.

I don't know what other examples there are, but there are others and I've read some; only having forgotten what they are.

Good for Al Jazeera! Show their lying hypocrites for the scum that they are. Also, I hope the Muslims take the Bibles away from them and hit them over the head real hard with their own 'holey' books.

"corvo May 6th, 2009 11:30 am

Oh, this is funny: you want proof that Jesus never existed. Sorry, logic doesn't work that way; one does not and cannot prove negatives."

Precisely; just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, ... could not get Saddam Hussein to prove that he did not have WMD and we, therefore, were supposed to believe he had these weapons [and] was ready to use them against the USA, nearly half way around the Earth.

Only, there's more evidence for Jesus [of Nazareth] having existed than there was for Saddam Hussein still possessing WMD, and being ready to use them against the USA, something which [no] sane, intelligent, ... person could have believed he'd be crazy enough to do.

The New Testament Gospels were written within the first century after the death of Jesus, written by men who claimed to have been of his apostles. If they wrote truthfully, then this is proof that Jesus existed.

corvo:

"The burden of proof is on those who believe Jesus really did exist, and the historical record is mighty scanty and unreliable."

BUT the same is true about far more than only the topic of Jesus of Nazareth. From ancient times, we have very little proof of anything, except material artifacts.

The descendants of the most ancient, first Christians, people of Iraq today, now them maintaining their ancient beliefs about Jesus having existed and what he taught, etcetera, constitutes a sufficient proof that he existed. It's not a hard, total proof, but it's sufficient.

I'm sure there are [sufficient], even if not wholly complete, elements of proof.

As for the article this CD page is for, these damn Evangelicals should take their copies of biblical scripture and eat them. Like said in the video, these U.S. military jerks [knew] damn well what the law says and, therefore, that they were breaking the law. Evangelicals of the USA are damn bastards and need to correct this. I know of some Evangelicals in Sherbrooke, Quebec, that no-place place, and these people are also fanatical, but in the USA they are very fanatical and wrongful people, very anti-Christian in their wrongs.

Jesus taught to the world;the words even twisted as they are still are here.

Gifts of God: 1. Love 2. Family 3. Freedom

Why these three; yes indeed why?

Love
To have a world without the uplifting and life affirming nature of this thing called love leaves us where we are today.

Even critters are more tolerant and loving than we as a human species should be considering our relative nearness to the Creator of all.

The love I speak of is: Consider the world as a home and every human as family and be a benevolent steward towards all other living creatures and you will see the wish of the all encompassing God.

Family
Here is a step; a step towards the ultimate understanding that all are a family as a human species. With the goal of a family of nations, of all peoples!

We start with the family of blood move to a family of interests, neighbors, on to cities, states or whatever they are called in other places and as you can see; a family of all.

This growing towards this ultimate goal has been the thrust of some in history and yet greed, power, the subjection of others turned a quest into a tragedy.

Freedom
Safety in fear is not freedom! It is a false choice for you get a negative trying to masquerade as a positive and in the process tyranny appears.

Freedom is of choice, yes, choices with responsibilities; responsibilities to others and not just to the me. For with the choice of the me; is this not greed and tyranny?

There are many more words and ideals of the gifts of a creator and yet, for me, these three: Love, Family, Freedom must stand together to usher in a world livable for all.

Tony 3/12/07 Where my heart is.

We can slice and dice here on this subject forever and still want to write more but the acts of our military,a reflection on us as a country,is wrong and counter-productive just like the occupation itself.I don't give a shit what they say they were doing with those "translated bibles" over there I would throw someone out of my home if he came preaching at me and I'm sure many of these same military folks would too.Tony

No one can prove that someone did not exist. But there is some non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus. During the Roman siege of Jeruselem, in, I believe, 60 AD., Josephus, a Jew who was a Roman citizen was there and wrote a book in which he mentioned the followers of a man named Jesus, who had been executed in the past.

That is about it. No mention of miracles, no mention of the Gospels, three of which were being written at about that time. As far as he and the Roman military were concerned, the followers of Jesus were just another fringe group, a political movement, that had to be dealt with. And when the Romans "dealt with" a group, they did it harshly.

By the time the canonical version of the New Testament was agreed upon, those in charge had the power to rule out anything not in accordance with the "party line," (e.g. the Apocrapha), so what we are presented with today is what was developed in the 2nd Century and modified over the next 2,000 years.

Back to the article - whose side of this story do I consider to be reliable? Easy answer, Al Jazeera, simply the best media organization operating in the Middle East and Afghanistan. I haven't considered the military's press releases, news etc. reliable for a long, long time. There is no question the armed forces are infected with Christianity - this is not slagging Christianity or the military - it is a simple statement of fact. When we hear of Generals actually saying "God gave is George Bush" or words to that effect, I get very uneasy.

Perhaps the U.S. military are the new Spanish conquistadors, invading foreign lands with evangelization and conversion (forced or otherwise) of the locals as part of the agenda. This has to stop - immediately!

Symbolic Exchange and Jesus

Sheldon Kopp's, If You Kill the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him, is not about material death--it is a metaphor. The point is that when you are on your spiritual journey and you see the Buddha (or Jesus, or Inana, or Tara, or Whoever) *out there* that you are missing the point because the light that you are seeking--enlightenment--is already within you. So, when you see *It* out there, you have not recognized your true self.

I think Jesus Killed Mohammed is a brilliant title that communicates something that is very important in understanding the ways that ideologies based on fear, hatred, and violence become meaningful for individuals as well as larger groups, nations, regions, etc. Through our categorizations and identifications, we create order in the world and within ourselves. [see Footnote for tangent-y comment]

I take the statement, Jesus Killed Mohammed, as a self-reflection that can be analyzed at several levels: the personal, the social/symbolic, and the regulatory. There are actual people who believe that this statement is meaningful *and* appropriate (and they are representing us and being paid by us ...they *are* us). We, as a nation, have been involved in a cultural war because our leaders have engaged *us* and *them* in a symbolic battle that has incredible material consequences. And, we are all involved in physical occupation of another land and people--and this is a violent occupation. I am personally horrified by all of these facts. The title to a film is *not* the problem. In fact, I think this title is a powerful statement that makes us think about who we are, what our values are about, and what the material and psychic consequences are of this violent occupation. We certainly need to begin recognizing ourselves in this horrific journey we have been on. Perhaps a new book is needed, If You Meet the Fundamentalist on the Road, Kill Them. We are, after all, seeing fundamentalism everywhere, out there, around us. Perhaps through recognition of our own reactionary compulsions we will be able to see and defeat our inner daemons and get on with journeys toward enlightenment.

...maybe if it were a chocolate Jesus we could all be satisfied :-)

Nia Savage
Detroit, MI USA

P.S. See Tom Waits for your Chocolate Jesus fix.

Footnote: I agree that the teachings of Jesus don’t appear to be consistent with the words or actions of Christians (and this has been true for at least 1,750 years)--and for that matter, the teachings of Jesus are really only the particular gospels consciously selected by the Orthodox Catholic Church several hundred years after the death of the historical Jesus ...and there is clear evidence from the letters that were passed between the Popes (as there were several Popes prior to the Orthodox Catholic split) that the Gospels selected for the New Testament canon were explicitly biased to favor absolute male rule, wealth consolidation of these men, and socio-political domination by these men.

"tanguero May 6th, 2009 12:23 am

Jesus never existed. There is no historical record of a man named Jesus."

PROVE THAT! Even a little, even if it's only a little, Judaic history says he existed, and there have been sane athiests who've recognised the existence of Jesus of ... not Rome, but Nazareth. When an American or "American" tells you anything, always wonder whether it's true or not, for truth is [not] "American" tradition to begin with, at all! I'm "American", but also Canadian or French-Canadian, from ancestry and upbringing, but I'm also patriotic, nationally, for not only the USA and Canada, but also other countries, as well as for humanity. After all, my first birth citizenship was not national, political, ..., but [humanity]!

Anyway, no one has yet been able to prove that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, and non-Christians have acknowlegded his existence. Also, while there are similarities between what he taught and (perhaps anyway) did, and things about Buddha or Krishna, there are some differences of import, and much, if not all, that's common between these people is humanly understable. After all, they all lived as human beings; blood, flesh, eating, heart, brain, kidneys, ... and souls. What's most striking, although it's not a major strikingness, about Jesus is not his similarities with Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, ..., but his differences. They're few, but they're nonetheless interesting, and that fact that they exist and make sound sense tells me that he very plausibly did exist.

Okay, great. Did he truly exist, though? NONE of us can answer this question! No human being can answer this question with authority. We can [pretend] to have such authority, but only idiots believe that such authority exists among humans. That is in good part why true Christian ministers, teachers, ... honestly say that the religious beliefs are faith, [not] fact!

Otoh, there have historically been very sound, sane, fair-minded, ... [ahtiests] who have recognised Jesus [of Nazareth] and appreciating him the writings were. These people just could not say more, they could not say that they could really support any known theism, and all theisms are of human origin in terms of descriptions, which are regularly mythologised, rendered into nonsense, ... etcetera.

Jesus of Nazareth never supported the kinds of "churches" that Europeans created, Roman Empire, and subsequent extensions or derivations, etcetera, but just because these churches have been historically hellbent does not mean that he did not exist, did not do as the Gospels say, supports these churches of European character, say, and so on. He could well have existed and the whole story distorted by people filled with greed, desire for power, etcetera, the very sort of things that he warned about.

He warned about the [many] false prophets, and they are not only officially ordained priests; they're [all] who profess to be of his disciples but preach, teach, lead, ... in contrary terms. These people can therefore be priests, nuns, or laity; anyone professing to be Christian.

He warned that [all] human institutions would or will fail, and [you] can not name one, only or simply one, that has not failed. They have all failed. All have, all will. Why? Humans! Even Amnesty Intl, HRW, MSF (Medecins Sans Frontieres), ... all FAIL, and they too often do this in awfully disgusting ways. F.e., they call on U.S. and NATO intervention in African matters, but the U.S. and NATO are the most hellbent f*cking bastards on Earth! A.I., HRW, and so on, including the dumbed U.S. Peace Corps, they're either all dummies, or else they're much worse than that and "players in the game" of imperialism, etcetera.

Jesus of Nazareth existed. Did ever a true humanitarian organisation exist? That's more difficult to prove.

Jesus did not live and pass on to be spectacular. He lived and died presenting a [lesson]. It was his religious role; to be teacher. He's not God and never pretended to be that. Only stupid religious humans claim Jesus is God; all of these damn idiots, who evidently can't tell the difference between "being sent by" and "being", f.e. His life was not a matter of spectacle, was not meant to be treated that way. But that's what we do with far more than only him! Why? Human shits! Well, or shit humans.

When Jesus was crucified, he was neither the first, nor the last! I've read that the general region (don't ask me what the km or miles were for diameter, etceter!) had many crosses, of many crucified people. Were they at all crucified as brutally as described about Jesus? I don't have a clue to the answer. I do not know what it is; no clue at all. However, I can certainly believe that others were crucified, and the Bible tells of apostle Peter being crucified, upside down, at his request. That in itself proves that crucifiction was not uncommon, that it was not unique in the case of Jesus.

A lot of people, Americans anyway, but perhaps more Euro-...shits, pretend Jesus was wholly unique, BUT he was not, had no intention of pretending to be, and so on. It was NOT his intention to be majorly special. He even referred to some disciples or apostles, or both, whatever, as brothers (by extension, sisters, if any women were present, and he had certainly no disdain for women, liking them like real sisters, he apparently did).

Jesus was [not] unique. He said people of his way, which was teaching God's will and way, were brothers (and sisters) with him, that we had or have the same father! Jesus did not come to be some ET sort of creature or being, but [human].

In any case, there is [no] proof that Jesus did not exist. If he didn't, then I still appreciate these teachings from someone who's never existed.

Why would anyone ever believe the MIC or their captive govenment again in this lifetime? Public trust
in these creatures is forever shattered and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't save it.

As for arguing about who's prophet is better is childish. God's gifts are in the messages and not the messengers. The Buddahists got it right when they say "if you meet the Buddah on the road - kill him." [i.e. You missed the whole point]

I really think it would be better if the three religions had their own separate God.

Why do Christians have to shove their sex lives down everyone's throats?

What we can't miss here is the attempt to gain control over the military,
whether it was the original right-wing propaganda being distributed in the
military and which JFK fought by firing General Edwin Walker, or our recent
and current efforts to use religion to control other nations.

You'll recall Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker as the guy Oswald allegedly took a shot at -- and he's also the guy who led the racist riot at Ole Miss! --
Walker was arrested at Ole Miss and "The Army ordered General Walker to undergo psychiatric testing."

UNQUOTE

http://www.textfiles.com/conspiracy/walker.txt

So . . . what's new?

Imperialists have used organized patriarchal RELIGION which is a right wing cause in itself all over the world -- from Hawaii to the "new world."
And, in Afghanistan, as well, by creating and using the Taliban to "bait the
Russians in . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience."

Nixon armed right wing fundamentalist Israel which served to bury peace-loving
anti-war Israel.

Same right-wing patterns -- still succeeding!!!

PS: QUOTE: it is a ahame that there is a total blackout on Al Jazeera TV in the US.UNQUOTE
Agree, completely!

"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"

"Jesus Killed Mohammed" says one soldier

Muslims believe and revere Jesus and count him as a holy prophet. Muslims are the only other religion on earth that recognizes Jesus besides Christianity. They also believe in his birth by the Virgin Mary. Muslims recognize the bible and refer to it as the "injeel" and Christians and Jews are labeled as people of the book. Muslims also believe in Abraham, Ishmael, Issaac, Adam, and Eve, Noah and all the great figures mentioned in the bible.

The ignorance of this soldier and his propensity towards violence really boggles the mind. These people are his cousins in creed oh the friggin irony there especially on a people who have suffered 30 years of war and violence and for whom peace and security are but luxuries.

It's been well known for a decade that the US military, esp the "air force"
has a specific Christian hierarchy from the general staff on down.
This situation of "end timers" in control of Your military,and Israel,(which without your tax$$ funding can not exist.
Your Gov't is "giving" billions under the table to hostile regimes,ie: Israel.
The "end timers" are feasting on your taxes.
"How you like me so far?".......James Brown

The U.S. Army preacher and the evangelical soldiers increase the risk of there being another 9/ll. Why? Because their actions will help al-Qaeda win over more recruits. And should the consequences ot this turn out to be another terrorist attack, the army preacher and the evangelical soldiers will go down as accomplices. I can see them standing before a military court, "On the charge of being accomplices to mass-murder, we find you guilty as charged."

Having just watched the unedited film provided at this site, I have to say that the reactions to it here are a bit unfair. Time and again it was stressed in the film that soldiers should NOT go and hand out bibles and should NOT shove Jesus down people's throats. The way to 'hunt people down for Jesus' was repeated again and again: be a good person. Be kind. and sure, have bibles on hand should people want to know the source of your goodness. So I'd like to know if any of you have watched the unedited version. The BBC presentation was obscenely sensationalist media circus BS. It doesn't sell to cover people who are told to be good and kind. What sells is shock and awe bullshit distortions! My view here is ONLY in relation to the unedited video above. Combine it with other firm evidence of converting the heathens, and I would be of an entirely different opinion. There ARE those who want to shove Jesus of Mohamed down everyone's throats. And they have caused more wars than almost any other group of humanity. Religion is the opium of choice for those who need to justify their selfishness. To tell people to be good and kind to others and to not shove religion at them is not such a bad idea.

*EXCERPT FROM THE "HARPER'S" ARTICLE:

-- The Iraqi interpreter took to the roof, bullhorn in hand. The sun was setting. Humphrey heard the keen of the call to prayer, then the crackle of the bullhorn with the interpreter answering–in Arabic, then in English for the troops, insulting the prophet. Humphrey’s men loved it. --

Enthusiastically interfering with a religious assembly while abusively spewing hateful words about what the intended listeners care about, some even more than life itself. Winning hearts and mind!!! (three exclams to denote my usual derision and scorn).

Sun Tzu was correct... no nation benefits from a protracted war.
Advice thousands of years old and still unheard.

Sioux Rose, Kane Jeeves, and anyone else having difficulty with the title of the Harper's article: Please refer again to Dickerson3870's posting, or better yet, read the Harper's article. I read the article, coincidentally just a few hours before seeing these articles on CD, and urge anyone who wants to open her or his eyes to this particular dimension of the depth of the mess this country is in to read it. (While youre at it, read Chris HEdges' 'American Fascists'). THE TITLE IS TAKEN FROM AN ACTUAL EVENT, PERPETRATED BY U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL. IT IS THIS ACTION WHICH IS INFLAMMATORY. It is actions like these that confirm what many have said about the U.S., as well as British, et. al., presence in Afghanistan and Iraq as being itself endangering to Western security, and inflaming tensions, driving up recruitment in Al Qaeda, etc. It is obtuse in the exreme to suggest that Harper's or any publication or journalist should shy away from reporting the real nature of what is going on. IF the people of the U.S. can be woken up to the realities of what is being done in their name, the more no-holds barred journalism the better.
As Mr Hedges points out in his book there is an extremely dangerous situation developing within the U.S. with radical 'Christian' fundamentalism. And as Jeff Sharlet covers in the Harper's article, corroborating Hedges, these psychotic 'Christians' believe that their real war is at home.
That the Pentagon should race to deny or claim that Hughes' footage was 'out of context', or do anything but state that they'll clean up the military, is a crime.

Kill for Christ has always meant that some group was having its resources ripped off.

Does this mean the US military is adopting the Ann Coulter strategy? Converting people in the Middle East to Christianity?

it is a ahame that there is a total blackout on Al Jazeera TV in the US.

I think it is pretty funny that these throwback military xtians seem to have really liked it that their crusading activities were being filmed - until they found out who used the film.

Never underestimate how much the US military hates Al Jazeera. I once sent a very sympathetic Al Jazeera flash cartoon on Pope Jonn Paul II when he died to my right-wing Catholic family - thinking it would be peace offering - only to get viciously attacked from a number of family members - particularly the one who was a career navy officer.

And, I always thought that the very idea of "chaplians" - military officers who are priests or ministers, to be pretty disgusting. Once one visited our office when I was working for the Corps of Engineers (Locks, Dams and flood control - no military crap in our District). I could hear him saying "Gawd bleeass Amerrrica!" from the other end of the office - so I quickly got up and pretended to have to go to the bathroom so I wouldn't have to talk to this vile individual when he went past my cubicle.

Jesus didn't preach Christianity, and he certainly wasn't a typical Jew among Jews. He exemplified Faith in his father in heaven, his creator; not the "in God we trust""God bless America" bullshit that oozes out of this countries icons and elected officials. He taught a new way of seeing that God, as a true Father figure.. Even a Centaurian of the Roman legion recognized Jesus' faith. The Centaurian asked for his slave to be healed, and the slave was, by Jesus, healed. This is not a message for the merits of slavery, or lack of, nor is it a message for the merits of military; it is a message of faith. Jesus obviously was against corporal punishment as in the story of the adulteress and the stoning. Saul, as Paul, converted from persecutor to being against the persecution of Christians. Upon conversion behaviors seem to change, which seems to fly in the face of professing "Christians" serving as occupation forces "defending" our country from within the borders of someone elses country. It seems that Conversion comes when life as one knows it becomes meaningless, or hopeless. Then open-minded Faith that Something will give meaning and purpose to that lost life creates a new person inside out. If all the military men and women who claimed Christianity had already had their conversion they probably wouldn't be there, they would be here protesting the occupation and inhumane treatment in our name. I guarantee that a prostheletizing would be easier over here without a gun in their hand.

Sioux Rose

The concept of killing/death attributable to God under any name is antithetical to what spirituality should and ought to mean. Yes, killing the Buddha (although it holds a different meaning in that the Buddhists fully understand reincarnation, as well as the idea that each must find his or her own way to The life stream/source) bothers me, but I find far more nauseating the piss contest that turns religion, the nonsensical all-too-flawed human notions of the Infinite into games of which god is bigger. Next thing they'll be measuring the phallic extensions of each of their purported gods. And people mock astrology? My God-dess, which system is more civilized? How many populations have been sacrificed for Zeus? or Venus?

Nothing unusual here. When the Iraq mess began, a sincere Christian man who was in the Air National Guard, told me he was ready to go and prove "our" god was stronger than "their" god. His wife, another nice person, was a 10 year Air Force vet who then worked as a postal inspector. These aren't tobacco chewing rednecks. Really astonishing.

Is it a new CD policy that most, but not all, comments can't be read unless logged in?

If there is a GOD, it is unlikely that murderers like these US Goons will ever get to meet him/her. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL"

"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats

Sioux Rose

KANE: I agree with your analysis, but I still find it pretty grotesque as a title.

Sioux Rose

I find as title, "Jesus Killed Mohammed" inflammatory. Jesus, as teacher of peace had NOTHING to do with the martial, bombastic inverted teachings of some of his followers; and they have had a lot of help over the centuries as a concerted effort was made to distort the teachings of the Avatar of tolerance into one of hatred and enmity. If anything constitutes the anti-Christ, it's those who purport to speak for God or Jesus who demand that others kill in his name. That fundamental delusion has been a huge factor in the costly redundant lessons of history. Of course the economic aspect, the tension between workers and elites is another factor; but both have often worked together. After all the church was the state (power) and vice versa until not very long ago. The devotees of the nouveau "unitary executive" theory would have their king/father/fuhrer/dictator back all over again, and seek to use theology to control persons--especially women--not unlike the equally rigid patriarchal Taliban, their enemy, yet ideological peer.