nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Also, in Hebrew, "Shalom" (lit translated "peace") just means "hello"...
Dawkins' Atheist Bus
- Thread starter IdleRich
- Start date
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Um. There was no such thing as hell in the Torah. Jesus made it up.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
So he's setting a good example now?
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Wait a minute, this is confusing. If he was the Son of God, then he didn't 'make it up' - it's an update.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Yeah after the miracles they'd be afraid and he'd say "peace out, don't be afraid, calm down"...if you believe in that sort of thing.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
roffle
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Just like David Blaine, but with charisma.
Well he chastised one of them for cutting an ear off.
There's a moral in there somewhere for the more fervent followers amongst us...
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
You've gotta hand it to Jesus, he really knew how to piss off the establishment, and for that I'll always admire him as a literary invention.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Jesus Christ, role model?
Perhaps the oddest thing of all about the widest spread and most virulent strain of Death Cult in all of history, to my thinking, is the fact that Jesus Christ was the farthest thing from what anyone now would consider a role model.
He had delusions of grandeur, slightly more ridiculous than Hitler's (I'm the son of God, I am God), but similar in tone to Jim Jones' or Charles Manson's.
He had psychotic breaks, and frequent psychotic episodes. The storming of the temple being only one of the more well-known.
He had all kinds of masochistic attachments. Judas, etc.
He was a pathological liar--my mom was a virgin, I turned water into wine, I perform miracles, God told me X Y and Z.
He encouraged his followers to revolt against colonial powers even to the point of martyrdom and violent uprising. Why? To prove that Jesus is way right about stuff.
What exactly is it about Jesus that I'm supposed to emulate?
If he actually lived, and lived today, he'd be locked up summarily at an institution for the criminally insane. But because he did it 2000 years ago that makes it ok?
All of this defending of Christianity just seems completely reactionary to me. It's as if because the scales have finally tipped and we've made some headway culturally so that we no longer rely on obviously outmoded moral codes from early post-Babylonian times, it's suddenly cool to act all "oh but Christians aways mean well." Do they? I know there are a lot of people who are sincere in their beliefs, but the sincere ones are rarely apologists, the apologists I just don't get. Either the Bible is 100% true, and the Word of God, and all of the bigotry and ignorance is to be taken seriously, or it's the biggest flaming pile of bullshit ever perpetrated on humanity.
If there's a hell, the road that leads straight in is paved with Christianity's good intentions.
Perhaps the oddest thing of all about the widest spread and most virulent strain of Death Cult in all of history, to my thinking, is the fact that Jesus Christ was the farthest thing from what anyone now would consider a role model.
He had delusions of grandeur, slightly more ridiculous than Hitler's (I'm the son of God, I am God), but similar in tone to Jim Jones' or Charles Manson's.
He had psychotic breaks, and frequent psychotic episodes. The storming of the temple being only one of the more well-known.
He had all kinds of masochistic attachments. Judas, etc.
He was a pathological liar--my mom was a virgin, I turned water into wine, I perform miracles, God told me X Y and Z.
He encouraged his followers to revolt against colonial powers even to the point of martyrdom and violent uprising. Why? To prove that Jesus is way right about stuff.
What exactly is it about Jesus that I'm supposed to emulate?
If he actually lived, and lived today, he'd be locked up summarily at an institution for the criminally insane. But because he did it 2000 years ago that makes it ok?
All of this defending of Christianity just seems completely reactionary to me. It's as if because the scales have finally tipped and we've made some headway culturally so that we no longer rely on obviously outmoded moral codes from early post-Babylonian times, it's suddenly cool to act all "oh but Christians aways mean well." Do they? I know there are a lot of people who are sincere in their beliefs, but the sincere ones are rarely apologists, the apologists I just don't get. Either the Bible is 100% true, and the Word of God, and all of the bigotry and ignorance is to be taken seriously, or it's the biggest flaming pile of bullshit ever perpetrated on humanity.
If there's a hell, the road that leads straight in is paved with Christianity's good intentions.
Last edited:
*sigh*... where to start...
the universe exploded out of nothing
that's totally absurd. science will never explain it.
so there very well may be a God. We don't know... but... maybe.
which means it's possible that there have been teachers, and/or a Messiah that could have been speaking the truth.
and if there is a God, who's creation is by nature miraculous in it's absurd existence, then this track record could suggest room for possibility of natural laws being bent or changed, if God's plan is directly involved. Universe. out of nothing. All bets could be off here. I'm not making an argument for a Spagetti Monster, but a Creator that would obviously have power beyond our scientific understanding.
and if God does exist, there could by extention be the possibility of moral truth. if so, maybe that explains why certain ideas and themes have continued to emerge in different beliefs and arts.
and if these truths are real, then, concerning the different characters who've claimed to be the Way, maybe it's a matter of realizing who's teaching seems closest to these truths. Christ, from what I can tell personally, is a contender. Jim Jones... obviously not. That's the difference between Jesus' claims and Jim's.
and if there is a God, then Christ's disgust at the merchants for profaning the Temple was totally OTM.
regardless, I think agnosticism is the only truly reasonable and honest perspective you can have that can be argued. Beyond that it's all choice. Which'll depend on what you consider valueable in life. Or moral. But if there is a truth, there's a possibility that it's up to us to seek it out, if we ever care to. But it'd be for us to be humble about it and realize that we don't really know at this point, and therefore should always be critical and self-correcting in the search.
whatever conclusions you come to, everyone else is free to theirs obv. But belief will never go away. Sorry about that. And yeah, society would be a lot better if Christians stay closer to Christ's teachings of love and nonjudgement, (though most of them are decent and usually well-meaning... I still don't quite get your issue with them). And again, the crimes of "Christians" in the past were matters of human greed and stupidity and were diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ, regardless of whether they're true or not.
what can I say, I just totally, totally disagree here. I'm not offended, go on expressing your views if you like. But I'm not being trendy or whatever. I don't really even want to defend these ideas, as if I'm not an often distractable, sometimes self-absorbed, flawed, human who doesn't know any more than anyone else. But whatever, just stating my honest impressions. And I didn't mean to preach, just trying to express how these things are still an open-ended possibility, so it could be rash, and possibly wrong, to totally write them off.
but I don't know
the universe exploded out of nothing
that's totally absurd. science will never explain it.
so there very well may be a God. We don't know... but... maybe.
which means it's possible that there have been teachers, and/or a Messiah that could have been speaking the truth.
and if there is a God, who's creation is by nature miraculous in it's absurd existence, then this track record could suggest room for possibility of natural laws being bent or changed, if God's plan is directly involved. Universe. out of nothing. All bets could be off here. I'm not making an argument for a Spagetti Monster, but a Creator that would obviously have power beyond our scientific understanding.
and if God does exist, there could by extention be the possibility of moral truth. if so, maybe that explains why certain ideas and themes have continued to emerge in different beliefs and arts.
and if these truths are real, then, concerning the different characters who've claimed to be the Way, maybe it's a matter of realizing who's teaching seems closest to these truths. Christ, from what I can tell personally, is a contender. Jim Jones... obviously not. That's the difference between Jesus' claims and Jim's.
and if there is a God, then Christ's disgust at the merchants for profaning the Temple was totally OTM.
regardless, I think agnosticism is the only truly reasonable and honest perspective you can have that can be argued. Beyond that it's all choice. Which'll depend on what you consider valueable in life. Or moral. But if there is a truth, there's a possibility that it's up to us to seek it out, if we ever care to. But it'd be for us to be humble about it and realize that we don't really know at this point, and therefore should always be critical and self-correcting in the search.
whatever conclusions you come to, everyone else is free to theirs obv. But belief will never go away. Sorry about that. And yeah, society would be a lot better if Christians stay closer to Christ's teachings of love and nonjudgement, (though most of them are decent and usually well-meaning... I still don't quite get your issue with them). And again, the crimes of "Christians" in the past were matters of human greed and stupidity and were diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ, regardless of whether they're true or not.
what can I say, I just totally, totally disagree here. I'm not offended, go on expressing your views if you like. But I'm not being trendy or whatever. I don't really even want to defend these ideas, as if I'm not an often distractable, sometimes self-absorbed, flawed, human who doesn't know any more than anyone else. But whatever, just stating my honest impressions. And I didn't mean to preach, just trying to express how these things are still an open-ended possibility, so it could be rash, and possibly wrong, to totally write them off.
but I don't know
...but more specifically, your criticisms of Jesus are based on this premise that there is no God or truth. Which you don't know any more than I do.
And honestly, I am yet to see one thing flawed with anything Jesus supposedly ever did or said myself. Not always things I want to hear, but that doesn't mean they might not be true. Who knows.
but that's really all I'll add on this subject. For the record, obv I don't know, but I'm leaning more towards belief in something. It makes more sense.
And honestly, I am yet to see one thing flawed with anything Jesus supposedly ever did or said myself. Not always things I want to hear, but that doesn't mean they might not be true. Who knows.
but that's really all I'll add on this subject. For the record, obv I don't know, but I'm leaning more towards belief in something. It makes more sense.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
See, this is an argument that I never understand, are we just supposed to forgive God for all his sins in the old testament 'cause he makes nice in the new one? He never appears to apologise or repent or do anything to make up for his evil actions as far as I'm aware so why should we?
people were utter savages back then though. it's not like they were tolerent or civil, minding their own business. All tribes continually invaded and enslaved other tribes, there were human sacrifices, etc.
Jesus was actually the first one to come in and counter all that and erase tribal lines. People forget that. Some "Christian" kingdoms or communities may have continued to act like animals, but hey that's humanity. But it's not like pretty much every tribe wasn't behaving that way before Jesus, and much more so.
IdleRich
IdleRich
But I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the word of God (in the old testament) - seems as though he was an utter savage then as well. Surely he should be someone who can influence humanity for good, not just a follower who was savage when people were savage and who then mended his ways (a bit) when he realised that people were getting a bit civilised and the murderous old God wouldn't go over too well.
I do feel you there. The OT was always somewhat of a problem for me as well. 
my understanding is that society just wasn't advanced enough for a looser, more tolerent message to work at the time. A more open message of love probably wasn't really a viable option until the Roman Empire had established some order and the Jews had come to a more familiar understanding of their moral laws, which was right around when Jesus entered the picture.
These Judaic Laws seem for the most part to have been about just keeping some sense of order and sanity in a violent, unreasonable, superstitious world. Sure there was stern judgement, but maybe the alternative was slavery or being assimilated into even more senseless cultures, who's customs would be seen as even more morally repugnant by today's standards. It's not like the pagans were any more reasonable or peaceful themselves. It sometimes amuses me when Wiccans or whatever try to portray those cultures as these loving hippie cults who *didn't* burn people alive and constantly rape and pillage. I'm not talking about early early band-level tribes though, but early societies.
my understanding is that society just wasn't advanced enough for a looser, more tolerent message to work at the time. A more open message of love probably wasn't really a viable option until the Roman Empire had established some order and the Jews had come to a more familiar understanding of their moral laws, which was right around when Jesus entered the picture.
These Judaic Laws seem for the most part to have been about just keeping some sense of order and sanity in a violent, unreasonable, superstitious world. Sure there was stern judgement, but maybe the alternative was slavery or being assimilated into even more senseless cultures, who's customs would be seen as even more morally repugnant by today's standards. It's not like the pagans were any more reasonable or peaceful themselves. It sometimes amuses me when Wiccans or whatever try to portray those cultures as these loving hippie cults who *didn't* burn people alive and constantly rape and pillage. I'm not talking about early early band-level tribes though, but early societies.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Well, there is more authority behind the New Testament because it involves the appearance of the divine incarnate, coming down to set the record straight.
Bear in mind that God needn't necessarily be 'nice.' God may well be wholly antipathetic to our interests.
The baptism of Jesus might represent an expiation of former sins (tho' Jesus is meant to be sinless).
IdleRich
IdleRich
So is the old testament right or not? Seems to me that if it is then my criticism still stands, if it's not then it ought not to appear in bibles printed since the year 0.
Well, I dunno about nice but God is held to be good isn't he? And if his interests are totally opposed then what is the rationale behind worshipping him other than currying favour and desperate self-interest? The moral low-ground in other words - and of course, it could all be pointless as in this case you have no reason to believe his word anyway. You might be tossed in the fire having wasted your life having proselytized for someone who hates you and having had no fun at all.
Once a fundie, always a fundie...
(Actually, not quite always. Some people do describe themselves as "recovering evangelicals")
The hardest thing is always persuading such people that the comparatively decent, humane, rational, creative variety of religion practiced by people like my mum (a retired CofE priest) actually is a fully valid and historically tenacious form of Christianity, rather than defanged and watered-down vestigial remnant. As the punchline to the old joke has it: "they think they're the only ones here".
(Actually, not quite always. Some people do describe themselves as "recovering evangelicals")
The hardest thing is always persuading such people that the comparatively decent, humane, rational, creative variety of religion practiced by people like my mum (a retired CofE priest) actually is a fully valid and historically tenacious form of Christianity, rather than defanged and watered-down vestigial remnant. As the punchline to the old joke has it: "they think they're the only ones here".