100 Most Evil People that ever lived.

[ER]

Sorry, you're all wrong. The answer is: Jesus.

Why? Because Jesus took on the sins of the others, meaning Jesus was guilty of treason, murder, child rape, theft, bestiality, watching the BBC without a license, spitting on the sidewalk, you name it.

What? Didn't you guys ever spend thirteen years in Catholic school?

That is a purposefully ignorant depiction of a Catholic tenet. 

".... He takes on the sins of the world...." Is said in every Mass, John. Don't you pay attention?

[RCMerchant]

" He takes on the sins of the world" doesn't mean he commited the sins of the world.

That's twisted.
I thought you were knowledgeable about religion. You just use it as a tool to belittle people.

[sprite75]

80. Franco- not James Franco, but the Spanish dictator.

When I went to Spain in late 2018 / early 2019 one of the places they had originally planned to take us to the Valle de los Caídos in San Lorenzo de El Escorial, where  he was originally buried but they weren't able to take us there.  Franco just got moved out to another cemetery a couple years ago.  Burying him at the Valley in the first place was an own goal by the Spanish Government at the time as Franco didn't want to be buried there but the government insisted and gave him an honor he totally did not deserve.

[ER]

" He takes on the sins of the world" doesn't mean he commited the sins of the world.

That's twisted.
I thought you were knowledgeable about religion. You just use it as a tool to belittle people.

No, RC, that did not originate with me, that's very old Christian doctrine. It's been spoken of by everyone from Billy Graham to...well, a great many others. It was a frequent admonishment when we'd act up in grade school. "Everything you do bad, you make Jesus guilty of doing."

To take on a sin means it becomes yours. The responsibility for it, the guilt. Jesus became guilty of the wrongdoing of those whose sins he accepted upon himself. "The unblemished sacrifice who became guilty of the sins of the world."

Heck, an evangelical preacher even have me good karma for the post, if you notice.

I'm surprised you've never heard of that, let alone John, since it's in the Catholic Mass, both Trindentine (which dates from the third century) and in many versions of the Novus Ordo Mass, which was formulated in the 1960s and altered more recently in the United States under a conference of American bishops headed by Archbishop Pilarczyk in the 1990s.

I don't see how I belittled anyone posting that. John on the other hand replied, belittling me, if you notice.

What I posted came from what I was taught in my upbringing, and obviously I'm not alone in taking that interpretation. If someone disagrees or comes from a background that taught otherwise, I respect that.

I will mention one thing here. You know how as he was dying Jesus called out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Did you know that was him referencing Psalm 22, which he was fulfilling at that moment? Well in that psalm there is the line, "I am a worm, hardly human." There is nobility in most self-sacrifice, but the self-loathing Jesus evinced then is sometimes explained by the fact that in completing his mission he had taken on wrongdoings from across time, becoming in effect as low as a worm, and barely human, as I think we all agree some people are in this world.

It's something to think about, both for the message of the Pslam and the fact Jesus was fulfilling something written in the 6th century BC.

(I just wanted to add that.)

[Allhallowsday]

Sorry, you're all wrong. The answer is: Jesus.

Why? Because Jesus took on the sins of the others, meaning Jesus was guilty of treason, murder, child rape, theft, bestiality, watching the BBC without a license, spitting on the sidewalk, you name it.

What? Didn't you guys ever spend thirteen years in Catholic school?

That is a purposefully ignorant depiction of a Catholic tenet. 

".... He takes on the sins of the world...." Is said in every Mass, John. Don't you pay attention?

Your characterization still is a purposefully ignorant depiction of a Catholic tenet.

[RCMerchant]

" He takes on the sins of the world" doesn't mean he commited the sins of the world.

That's twisted.
I thought you were knowledgeable about religion. You just use it as a tool to belittle people.

No, RC, that did not originate with me, that's very old Christian doctrine. It's been spoken of by everyone from Billy Graham to...well, a great many others. It was a frequent admonishment when we'd act up in grade school. "Everything you do bad, you make Jesus guilty of doing."

To take on a sin means it becomes yours. The responsibility for it, the guilt. Jesus became guilty of the wrongdoing of those whose sins he accepted upon himself. "The unblemished sacrifice who became guilty of the sins of the world."

Heck, an evangelical preacher even have me good karma for the post, if you notice.

I'm surprised you've never heard of that, let alone John, since it's in the Catholic Mass, both Trindentine (which dates from the third century) and in many versions of the Novus Ordo Mass, which was formulated in the 1960s and altered more recently in the United States under a conference of American bishops headed by Archbishop Pilarczyk in the 1990s.

I don't see how I belittled anyone posting that. John on the other hand replied, belittling me, if you notice.

What I posted came from what I was taught in my upbringing, and obviously I'm not alone in taking that interpretation. If someone disagrees or comes from a background that taught otherwise, I respect that.

I will mention one thing here. You know how as he was dying Jesus called out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Did you know that was him referencing Psalm 22, which he was fulfilling at that moment? Well in that psalm there is the line, "I am a worm, hardly human." There is nobility in most self-sacrifice, but the self-loathing Jesus evinced then is sometimes explained by the fact that in completing his mission he had taken on wrongdoings from across time, becoming in effect as low as a worm, and barely human, as I think we all agree some people are in this world.

It's something to think about, both for the message of the Pslam and the fact Jesus was fulfilling something written in the 6th century BC.

(I just wanted to add that.)

WTF are you babbling about?
Convoluted BS.
What's your point?
Try to inject LOGIC into your argument, then maybe I will take you serious.
And making a reference to Billy Graham does not help. The guy made millions of dollars from being a preacher. Buddy with Nixon. He was a big money phony. He started all this evangelical political s**t.
It's not religion. It's a business.
If that's a "christian" doctrine- I want no part of it.

[ER]

We really going to chase our tails back and forth, RC? Again? Really? Why not STS about Shirley Jackson instead?

All right, how about I make this my last reply to the matter?

I cited Billy Graham because millions of people have a high opinion on his knowledge of his religion. I was saying if my statement about Jesus was ignorant, then experts share the same ignorance.

As for logic, well, believing in something in part because an event predicted in the 500s BC came true in the 1st century AD might be termed logical, but your bigotry against religion is something you've made well known.

I don't know if you're drinking now but sobriety honestly does often allow clearer thinking, so if you are partaking, maybe consider this another time?

[RCMerchant]

So your argument against mine is I must be drunk? That's grasping straws. Churchill was a drunk. Hitler never drank. I can out debate you lying flat on my face then you can standing on a soapbox waving a Bible any day of the week. You take personal jabs at me because you have no real answer.
What's your excuse for the hoodoo that comes out of your mouth?
As far as the rest goes, you're the one who brought up this topic of religion.
And I comment about movies all the time. You might want to try it.
Instead of being a drama queen.

PS. Experts? Name these " experts". Again- all mouth, no proof.

Stick with what you know- which is quaint Garrison Keillor diatribes.

[indianasmith]

ER's original post was a bit tongue in cheek, but she has clarified it sufficiently.
The whole point of the redemptive work of Christ was that he took on the sins of the world in order to pay the price for our sakes.
The Bible plainly says: "He who knew no sin BECAME SIN on our behalf."
It's fine if you reject Christianity - you've made it clear long since that you have no regard for any religion - but what she was expressing in her own wry fashion is an age-old doctrine of the Church, as she referenced in her second post.

[RCMerchant]

And went on to slam John and talk s**t.
"wry fashion"?
Is that what you call bulls**t nowadays?
Your right- I don't follow any religion. I don't give a rats ass. But she was slamming others beliefs. That's ok, I reckon.
ER said I am bigoted to all religion. She seems to be against  all beliefs beyond hers. That's being a bigot as well. I reckon were ALL bigots, huh? Because of our beliefs?
I NEVER push my atheism onto others- meanwhile she's ok to preach to others.
I took the first post as some kind of joke. But she dragged it out and defended what she said on and on. When it offended John, she kept prodding. For what purpose?

[ER]

Ron, I don't think you could out-debate anyone, you just rant.

[RCMerchant]

Ron, I don't think you could out-debate anyone, you just rant.

Says the pot to the kettle.  
Majorie Taylor Greene read too much Emily Dickinson.
Pretty talk. No substance. What was your point in the first place for posting Christ as evil? Beyond being a smart ass?
You call me out for not being religious- yet it's ok for you to joke about Jesus Christ being evil.
WTF? Why are you trying to turn this table onto me?
I didn't say Christ was evil. You did.

[Allhallowsday]

Ron, I don't think you could out-debate anyone, you just rant.

Says the pot to the kettle.  
Majorie Taylor Greene read too much Emily Dickinson.
Pretty talk. No substance. What was your point in the first place for posting Christ as evil? Beyond being a smart ass?

 

[RCMerchant]

Ron, I don't think you could out-debate anyone, you just rant.

I just did, dear.  

[ER]

Sorry, you're all wrong. The answer is: Jesus.

Why? Because Jesus took on the sins of the others, meaning Jesus was guilty of treason, murder, child rape, theft, bestiality, watching the BBC without a license, spitting on the sidewalk, you name it.

What? Didn't you guys ever spend thirteen years in Catholic school?

That is a purposefully ignorant depiction of a Catholic tenet.  

".... He takes on the sins of the world...." Is said in every Mass, John. Don't you pay attention?

Your characterization still is a purposefully ignorant depiction of a Catholic tenet.

John, if you care to cite, in private, exactly how I am misrepresenting fundamental Christian  doctrines repeatedly clarified to me and my classmates in theology lectures by a Jesuit scholar with double doctorates, please feel free, but to say I'm wrong and then offer no other counterpoint doesn't bring anything to this hijacked discussion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online and it might help broaden your familiarity with the faith you think you're defending if you take some time to study exactly what the catechism says on this matter.