"Touchdown Jesus" Burns....
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
I came home from Viet Nam, 40 years ago, thank u Lord, no bullet holes, no missing limbs, am in good health and got VA bennies to boot. I'm out here having fun now, someday I collect that social security check. God is great .
I older now, was 22 once, all my military stuff is in a museum now..omy
I older now, was 22 once, all my military stuff is in a museum now..omy
Dakota
Veteran Expediter
I've worn them shorts all over and lived to tell about it...someone must be watching over me...
There is a golfer here that wears shorts like those and everyone talks about it. You just like the attention, admit it
Dakota
Veteran Expediter
that wasn't my intent...that is for sure...I just did not realize how bland(boring) other drivers dressed...*L* they have no sense of adventure...
What can I say? You brighten up the truck stops, good job Ken
You can be such a downer.
A little levity aint appreciated around here.
BUT, since you asked,
It is the belief of the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ established the the church.
His twelve apostles were sent forth to further Christs teaching.
It is argued Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Based on this and on the quote of Jesus saying" upon this rock" the idea of "Papal primacy" began where Catholics believe their religious leader is the successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome or the POPE.
Now, if you are a Catholic and follow their teaching and the Nuns havent wacked the tar out of you with a ruler,
the follow certainly were not the last, but hey, its what I got.
Now that that can of worms is opened, back to your wanting to know about a Catholic being crucified:
- Peter was crucified head down in Rome, 66 A.D.
- Andrew was bound to death. He preached until his death in 74 A.D.
- James , son of Zebedee, was beheaded in Jerusalem by the sword. (Acts 12:1-9).
- John was banished to the Isle of Patmos, 96 A.D. (Rev. 1- 9).
- Phillip was crucified at Heirapole, Phryga, 52 A.D.
- Bartholomew was beaten, crucified, then beheaded by the command of a king, 52 A.D.
- Thomas was run through by a lance at Corehandal, East Indies, 52 A.D.
- Matthew was slain by the sword in the city of Ethiopia about 60 A.D.
- James son of Alphaeus, was thrown from a pinnacle, then beaten to death, 60 A.D.
- Thaddeus was shot to death by arrows, 72 A.D.
- Simon was crucified in Persia, 74 A.D.
I hope I shed light on your question.
Now, back to my regularly scheduled satirical self.
I had no idea that was taking place in this day and age. But, given the radical behavior that can take place in that part of the world, I shouldn't be shocked. I don't think we have to worry about that here.
thats 11...what about Paul???
I heard he turned 68 the other day. Does that ever make me feel old!
Oh, wait... You probably mean the Apostle, not the Beatle.
Every religion emphasizes human well being, human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. Along these lines every religion has more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal. The problems begin when someone who thinks they know better takes the religion and molds it into something else, starts messing with the details, starts focusing on the details as a means of convincing others to believe the same thing, and hence gains control over them, and then has the followers and believers pass those beliefs and thus being controlled down to others, even across generations.
When you focus on the details (the stories) to the exclusion of what the details in total are supposed to mean, you become lost in your faith without even knowing it. When you become mired in the abyss of the why's and wherefore's and therefore's of religion, you lose sight of what you're supposed to be doing in the first place, and your faith becomes hijacked by your own religion. That's when you have people snatching out lines of the Bible (or other religious texts), out of context, to explain this or that, or to justify this or that, because they have to keep their religious beliefs in tact, unchanging, in spite of their faith. That's when you have people believing that the Flintstones is a documentary, and so they create a Creationsim Museum to prove it. And to bolster and validate their beliefs, and to try and convince others to think the same way.
They're so afraid that science will disprove part of, or God forbid, all of their religious beliefs, that they've let their religion hijack their faith. There is no battle between God and science. There can be no genuine conflict between science and the belief in God. Science nor the scientific method can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, but it can call into question some of the details that some hold so dear as to base their faith upon, and that disturbs a lot of people. None of the major religions actually command you to be petty and ignorant and to disbelieve your own experience, yet some sure think that way.
I've read the Bible cover to cover. You know what it says? It says two things:
1 - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
2 - Do not to to others as you would not like to have done to you.
That's it. When all is said and done, that's it. These two things in conjunction with each other means for you to go out and do good, and when you're not doing good, don't do bad. (This Golden Rule is known by the lame title of Ethics of Reciprocity, because somebody has to justify their job.)
But you know what religion tells you about these two things? That these two things only apply to people who think like you, to those who also believe in the same things as you and in the same way as you. This is the foundation for war, the foundation for genocide, and it's happening right now, today. We are in the midst of a Holy War that is no different than any other Holy War in history. Many people don't see it because their faith has been hijacked by their religion. They think it is justified because they are in the right and the other guy is in the wrong. They're both wrong.
We've got one group that believes in total immersion for the ritual of Baptism, and another group that believes in sprinkling. Put these two opposing forces together in the same room and there's gonna be a scuffle. Oh, My, God.
The greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Golden Rule applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. Religions should stress that their followers use the Golden Rule when dealing with persons of other religions, and even those of no religions, but they don't. They stress just the opposite. They stress the opposite because doing so fosters control and promotes followers to go out and gather up as many people as possible and convince them to believe the same things. But unless and until religions start telling their followers that all humans, every one of them, have worth in the eyes of God and should be treated in a God-like manner with love and respect and compassion, then religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide will never end.
When you focus on the details (the stories) to the exclusion of what the details in total are supposed to mean, you become lost in your faith without even knowing it. When you become mired in the abyss of the why's and wherefore's and therefore's of religion, you lose sight of what you're supposed to be doing in the first place, and your faith becomes hijacked by your own religion. That's when you have people snatching out lines of the Bible (or other religious texts), out of context, to explain this or that, or to justify this or that, because they have to keep their religious beliefs in tact, unchanging, in spite of their faith. That's when you have people believing that the Flintstones is a documentary, and so they create a Creationsim Museum to prove it. And to bolster and validate their beliefs, and to try and convince others to think the same way.
They're so afraid that science will disprove part of, or God forbid, all of their religious beliefs, that they've let their religion hijack their faith. There is no battle between God and science. There can be no genuine conflict between science and the belief in God. Science nor the scientific method can ever prove or disprove the existence of God, but it can call into question some of the details that some hold so dear as to base their faith upon, and that disturbs a lot of people. None of the major religions actually command you to be petty and ignorant and to disbelieve your own experience, yet some sure think that way.
I've read the Bible cover to cover. You know what it says? It says two things:
1 - Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
2 - Do not to to others as you would not like to have done to you.
That's it. When all is said and done, that's it. These two things in conjunction with each other means for you to go out and do good, and when you're not doing good, don't do bad. (This Golden Rule is known by the lame title of Ethics of Reciprocity, because somebody has to justify their job.)
But you know what religion tells you about these two things? That these two things only apply to people who think like you, to those who also believe in the same things as you and in the same way as you. This is the foundation for war, the foundation for genocide, and it's happening right now, today. We are in the midst of a Holy War that is no different than any other Holy War in history. Many people don't see it because their faith has been hijacked by their religion. They think it is justified because they are in the right and the other guy is in the wrong. They're both wrong.
We've got one group that believes in total immersion for the ritual of Baptism, and another group that believes in sprinkling. Put these two opposing forces together in the same room and there's gonna be a scuffle. Oh, My, God.
The greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Golden Rule applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. Religions should stress that their followers use the Golden Rule when dealing with persons of other religions, and even those of no religions, but they don't. They stress just the opposite. They stress the opposite because doing so fosters control and promotes followers to go out and gather up as many people as possible and convince them to believe the same things. But unless and until religions start telling their followers that all humans, every one of them, have worth in the eyes of God and should be treated in a God-like manner with love and respect and compassion, then religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide will never end.
thats 11...what about Paul???
What about Paul.........hmmmmmm
Not much written about his death. Much speculation.
It is interesting that many scholars believe Pauls influence
and teaching far surpassed those of Peters and see Paul as the 1st head of the new religion taught by Christ.
It is widely speculated that Peter liked dark chocolate without nuts, and Paul preferred milk chocolate with almonds. However where they did agree was that each serving would be split into two pieces comprising two to three bites each. (The three bites theory is strictly an urban legend and has never been actually witnessed, it is also highly unlikely due to the "two almond rule", ie two almonds per section. It may be accomplished easier with Peter's bar but the irresistibility of the decadent dark chocolate, makes this unlikely as well)
What is really interesting and not well known is that Mary liked coconut, and when that was added they were so elated that they formed a folk music trio. This great trio was almost sidetracked when a stupid follower almost gave them a hammer, had that happened We would have been robbed of great taste and catchy folk music, for they would have been far to busy hammering out danger, warnings and love between brothers and sisters! ,to make great candy and time enduring folk music.
What is really interesting and not well known is that Mary liked coconut, and when that was added they were so elated that they formed a folk music trio. This great trio was almost sidetracked when a stupid follower almost gave them a hammer, had that happened We would have been robbed of great taste and catchy folk music, for they would have been far to busy hammering out danger, warnings and love between brothers and sisters!
,to make great candy and time enduring folk music.
Last edited:
Just gave yourself away there, didn'tcha, Doug.It is widely speculated that Peter liked dark chocolate without nuts, and Paul preferred milk chocolate with almonds. However where they did agree was that each serving would be split into two pieces comprising two to three bites each. (The three bites theory is strictly an urban legend and has never been actually witnessed, it is also highly unlikely due to the "two almond rule", ie two almonds per section. It may be accomplished easier with Peter's bar but the irresistibility of the decadent dark chocolate, makes this unlikely as well)
What is really interesting and not well known is that Mary liked coconut, and when that was added they were so elated that they formed a folk music trio. This great trio was almost sidetracked when a stupid follower almost gave them a hammer, had that happened We would have been robbed of great taste and catchy folk music, for they would have been far to busy hammering out danger, warnings and love between brothers and sisters!
You can be such a downer.
A little levity aint appreciated around here.
BUT, since you asked,
It is the belief of the Catholic Church that Jesus Christ established the the church.
His twelve apostles were sent forth to further Christs teaching.
It is argued Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Based on this and on the quote of Jesus saying" upon this rock" the idea of "Papal primacy" began where Catholics believe their religious leader is the successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome or the POPE.
Now, if you are a Catholic and follow their teaching and the Nuns havent wacked the tar out of you with a ruler,
the follow certainly were not the last, but hey, its what I got.
Now that that can of worms is opened, back to your wanting to know about a Catholic being crucified:
Now this is just what happened to the remaining Apostles.
- Peter was crucified head down in Rome, 66 A.D.
- Andrew was bound to death. He preached until his death in 74 A.D.
- James , son of Zebedee, was beheaded in Jerusalem by the sword. (Acts 12:1-9).
- John was banished to the Isle of Patmos, 96 A.D. (Rev. 1- 9).
- Phillip was crucified at Heirapole, Phryga, 52 A.D.
- Bartholomew was beaten, crucified, then beheaded by the command of a king, 52 A.D.
- Thomas was run through by a lance at Corehandal, East Indies, 52 A.D.
- Matthew was slain by the sword in the city of Ethiopia about 60 A.D.
- James son of Alphaeus, was thrown from a pinnacle, then beaten to death, 60 A.D.
- Thaddeus was shot to death by arrows, 72 A.D.
- Simon was crucified in Persia, 74 A.D.
I hope I shed light on your question.
Now, back to my regularly scheduled satirical self.
I am aware of the history, but you said the "last Catholic" That seems to have been in the Sudan in 2009, that is the last confirmed evidence of a Cristian/Catholic being crucified that I have been able to find. Glad you see you back to your normal satirical self!! We would not know you other wise!! How you guys been?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But not one of them on the list were catholics to begin with. To be exact I think they were still practicing Jews.
Nevertheless, Sudan had several cases of killing of Christians by Muslim fanatics but they were not just targeting Christians, others were also killed the same way.
Nevertheless, Sudan had several cases of killing of Christians by Muslim fanatics but they were not just targeting Christians, others were also killed the same way.
The is a cult type group called the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) that is a mixture of many religions, vodoo etc that is killing in this manner in the Sudan.
I was not trying to justify anything by anybody. I was just pointing out who might have been the "Last Catholic Crucified". Nothing more. That is a messed up area and has been for years.
When we had troop stationed in Ethiopia in the '70's they were NOT allowed to wear their uniforms. They were escorted to and from work and, for the most part, confined to small areas when not at work. Not a fun tour of duty.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Layout, I think you misunderstand.
See the problem with the Sudan and Darfur and all that area is with the African Union who demands our money but doesn't solve the problem. Like at the FIFA games, South African "activist" demand that the US send more money to fight aids but the AU refuses to allow us to direct where the money goes to.
Ethiopia is one of the countries who actually acts, even though they are considered backwards by many, they also see the threats to the world by these groups.
See the problem with the Sudan and Darfur and all that area is with the African Union who demands our money but doesn't solve the problem. Like at the FIFA games, South African "activist" demand that the US send more money to fight aids but the AU refuses to allow us to direct where the money goes to.
Ethiopia is one of the countries who actually acts, even though they are considered backwards by many, they also see the threats to the world by these groups.