The creation myth says that god created the first two people, and we are all the inbread decendents of them and there children. we were supposidly created in the image of god, and if god is a perfect being there should be some divinity in everyone. So if god senf down jesus to die for our sins, it was unnessary because we are all the great grandkids of god, who die for our own sins every day. Now somone will point out that eve disobeyed god in eating the damn apple, at the urging of satan or one of his minions, but that means that god is impotent on several levels and therefor not a god as the bible defines god.

So the point is that jesus was unnessary. If god was truly omnipotent then he would have forgiven us as he instructs us to forgive each other, and not have been the prideful bastard who will not forgive us for his mistake.

By the way, I am an atheist, so if somone knocks a hole in my argument I will not hide behind my faith, I'll just get it right next time.

Since God is omnipotent, he can do whatever the fuck he wants and is not encumbered by the rediculous restrictions you try to place on him.

Why is he a cocksucker? Because he wants to be. He's fucking omnipotent.

If he wanted to forgive, then he could forgive. But he doesn't want to, and you can't make him. Since he's omnipotent, he can do it. He can do anything.

Do note that I don't believe God to be one fella any more. I'm just playing along.

Being created "in the image of God" doesn't necessarily entail that we possess the same nature and attributes as God. Certainly in terms of our divinity, we are distinctly different from not only God, but also from Jesus. According to christianity, we are a part of God's creation whereas Jesus existed before creation. So there is a fundamental error in the first part of your reasoning.

quote: that means that god is impotent on several levels and therefor not a god as the bible defines god.

Another thing you probably need to look at are your concepts of God's omniscience and omnipotence. The fact that God did not prevent Eve and Adam from disobeying in no way destroys God's omniscience or omnipotence. It does not demonstrate that God was either powerless or unaware* of what would happen.

quote:

So the point is that jesus was unnessary. If god was truly omnipotent then he would have forgiven us as he instructs us to forgive each other, and not have been the prideful bastard who will not forgive us for his mistake.

Again, I think the way in which we understand "true omnipotence" affects the conclusions we arrive at. As far as I understand, an omnipotent God should be able to "click the fingers and forgive us". However, to do this alone would make God unjust.

Thus, both God's justice and God's desire to be reconciled with us can be maintained through the use of a scapegoat. Of course, this can telescope off into questions like "Does God have free will" and so on. I think in alot of questions about the nature of God, even for a theist like myself, will end up with a kind of "reverent agnosticism", 'cause to be perfectly honest, we just don't know.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Being created "in the image of God" doesn't necessarily entail that we possess the same nature and attributes as God. Certainly in terms of our divinity, we are distinctly different from not only God, but also from Jesus. According to christianity, we are a part of God's creation whereas Jesus existed before creation. So there is a fundamental error in the first part of your reasoning.

Again, I think the way in which we understand "true omnipotence" affects the conclusions we arrive at. As far as I understand, an omnipotent God should be able to "click the fingers and forgive us". However, to do this alone would make God unjust.

Thus, both God's justice and God's desire to be reconciled with us can be maintained through the use of a scapegoat. Of course, this can telescope off into questions like "Does God have free will" and so on. I think in alot of questions about the nature of God, even for a theist like myself, will end up with a kind of "reverent agnosticism", 'cause to be perfectly honest, we just don't know.

not that it really matters, but i agree...well said

quote:So the point is that jesus was unnessary. If god was truly omnipotent then he would have forgiven us as he instructs us to forgive each other, and not have been the prideful bastard who will not forgive us for his mistake.[/B]

Jesus and God are both unnecessary! That is a side issue.

The concept of the Adam/Eve and Jesus thing is about life/death, and is not really dependent upon if the story is true or not. Of course, God could forgive if he wanted, but the issue is about your belief, your choice, not God's choice.

Adam sinned and recieved death as a "reward" for that sin. If this situation had been left at that, then you would have to die for your sins.

Jesus was sinless, and also recieved death as a reward for his sinlessness. God permitted this to happen. If you can understand this, then you are at a beginning of transforming your mind and the way you think into the only truly revolutionary thought.

If Jesus existed or not, is not required or relevent to this argument.

Belief in God is also not required to gain the benefit of this concept.

Carl Jung articulated the best description of biblical parables IMHO.

The bible is far from literal in most instances.

As for the Adam&Eve story- it's a complicated context that the tale is trying to convey, so it will be kind of lengthy to describe what it means. I'll to be as brief as possible:

Before civilization man was psychologically very similar to all other animals: Eat, shit, sleep, fuck, kill that which threatens you or your families existance, etc. With the introduction of society, language, culture- all things we call civilized, this 'pagan' i.e. hedonistic yet natural way of thinking was a 'problem' in the middle east. The Jews are credited by both Nietzsche and Jung as being 'more human than human'. Judaism has a history of pushing ideals of what humans should act like above what the 'pagans' act like (even though the pagans are closer to nature, which is seen by the Jews as primitive).

The story of Adam&Eve is a conflict between primitive mans ignorance-is-bliss primitive/natural lifestyle and thought pattern and the fruits of knowledge. The temptation of knowledge is too great for Adam&Eve and they're cast out of 'paradise' (i.e. mans environment before the takeover of civilization/society) after partaking in the fruit of knowledge. With society and civilized living comes burdens- like etiquette, conformity, etc. These burdens cause man to develop doubts, self-consciousness and other neurotic symptoms. The life of Jesus Christ and his person was considered the messiah to some Jews that would complete their religious doctrine with fulfillment of the prophecy, but they were cast away as heretics. Saul of Tarsus (St.Paul) 'gentilized' Christianity and transported it to the Roman empire (which was at this point Wotanist/pagan). With the conversion of Constantine and the creation of a standardized bible Christianity spread to all of Europe. The significance of this event is that the Adam&Eve story took on a continent wide relaization. The old pagan world of Roman and Germanic concepts of justice and law were replaced with Christian law and the pagan societies which were by all means healthier than the Christian societies that would come about in the middle ages- were replaced by Christian concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, and the institution of the Church as the only place to find a way to resolve conflict and makeup for your 'sins'.

And the parable of Jesus Christ's crucifixion is the idea that his innocence represents the childlike nature of our pre-civilized humanity and that his crucifixion was to save us from the pagan decadence of pre-civilized thoughts and actions in a civilized world.

As far as I'm concerned the life and deeds of jesus christ are an idol before god, as the Trinity says father son holy spirit, but if the son is of the same substance as God and yet not God, but is worshipped as God in his place, that would make Jesus Christ a false idol no different from the Golden Cow.'

Long story short, you shouldn't take sunday school so seriously. Religion (especially the bible) is nothing more than folk tales to convey a moral. It's a parable, stupid. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Christianity is polytheism disguised as monotheism to make the masses feel special.

No Jesus wasn't needed (nor was he the Moshiac nor was he the supposed Son of G-d at least no more than we are all Sons and Daughters of G-d). In fact Christianity was simply Judaism that believed the Messiah had come. Then Paul came around and totally ruined the religion, claiming Jesus was G-d and basically telling people that the rules of G-d no longer applied because Jesus died for our sins... Paul was just using the early Messianic form of Judaism to push his own hedonistic agenda.

quote:Originally posted by Tchort:

Carl Jung articulated the best description of biblical parables IMHO.

What you have put forth here is looking at the bible/Jesus etc. from a particular point of view that sees the world as an evolution of less intelligent people in the past, progressing to become more intelligent and better in the present. Or at least more intelligent.

Not that there is no validity to this point of view, but there are other ways to look at it...Or maybe I should say should we try to look, or try to find a way to look at it, that finds a message, if it is there, that is intended for us and that is for our benefit?...and that is maybe more advanced than what we can come up with?

What substitute explanation or help does Carl Jung give us, that we can live by?... and how effective is his recommendation?

quote:Long story short, you shouldn't take sunday school so seriously. Religion (especially the bible) is nothing more than folk tales to convey a moral. It's a parable, stupid.

Unless of course, this Jesus bloke was actually resurrected...

If he was resurrected then I am G-d.

[This message has been edited by Fascistsmasher (edited 07-22-2004).]

?

jesus was a guy no more different than you or i, that had a different perspective on what goes on.

he was necessary because he tried to show people how to think 'outside the box' - to think less about themself and more about others.

nothing more and nothing less.

he was no less the son of god than you or i

Nah, he had long hair and a beard, and wore funky flowing gowns. I've never been like that (except I once had a beard).

Also, there's the whole miracles, fullfilling Jewish prophecy, being resurrected thing too- I've never done any of that either.

He fulfilled absolutely 0 Jewish prophecies... ass. If youre going to make statements like that at least do some fucking research.

You mean these?

http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/

I tend to agree with you. Most of the bible is myth, but from time to time, god does send someone to sorta show the way--as a rule, these folks end up being killed for their trouble.

If Jesus had never been born, many people would probably worship Mithra.

quote:What you have put forth here is looking at the bible/Jesus etc. from a particular point of view that sees the world as an evolution of less intelligent people in the past, progressing to become more intelligent and better in the present. Or at least more intelligent.

Not that there is no validity to this point of view, but there are other ways to look at it...Or maybe I should say should we try to look, or try to find a way to look at it, that finds a message, if it is there, that is intended for us and that is for our benefit?...and that is maybe more advanced than what we can come up with?



Jung's interpretation of Christianity is fairly unique- since in various works he puts the history and theology of Christianity under a psychoanalytical-esque microscope. But you're right, this is only one interpretation- but compared to most others its pretty progressive and more valid than many others (the age of science pretty much put took literal meaning out of the bible).

Jung (along with Nietzsche) see our present situation in the world/civilization/society as less than evolution, just an easily understand path that numerous events in human history (wars, colonialism, religions, political influence, etc) have culminated into. I guess the way I see it the point of historical discussion among these 2 German intellectuals is to prove that modern man has a higher capacity for understanding (through language/discourse, science, etc) truth than primitive man did; at least on a highly conscious level (as can be seen in Jung's work on the collective unconscious/higher consciousness and Nietzsche's Zarathustra/Overman). Primitive man used folk tales and dogma to explain morals and beliefs; we don't have to do that today to explain our points of view.

quote:What substitute explanation or help does Carl Jung give us, that we can live by?... and how effective is his recommendation?



That we can live by? I think his work concerning the collective unconscious and a modern Wotanist revival among European blooded peoples is the alternative he wanted. The counterculture of Jung (and Hitler's) day was anti-Christian or Wotanist/Paganistic (similiar to the subcultures of our present in their relation to being counterculture- rap, punk, hippy etc imagine if everyone part of a subculture all represented the same thing). It was becoming trendier to return to the old beliefs and ways of thinking in the German speaking world from the late 19th century on. If the Nazis would've won WWII Europe probably would've returned to a paganistic/wotanistic lifestyle or so marginialized the church that the 'faith' of the people would've been placed in either a very primitive (i.e. original conversions pre-1000ad) version of Christianity that had been so heavy in Nordic/Wotanist imagry and worldview that it might as well just of been Wotanism with Jesus representing Odin or faith placed into National Socialism as a worldview as well as political body. Jung's alternative was almost realized, but it's still valuable today (at least for Europeans/European-Americans) to teach the capacity of our people to understand and revamp or destroy Christianity.

What is Wotanist?

quote:What is Wotanist?

Wotanism = polytheistic paganism of central/northern Europe.

Back to my first post though, in which I presented the idea that was brought out by Jesus' death, which is a unique idea, and is not appreciated by Jung. You glossed over it.

Why did Jesus recieve death for sinlessness? Just the opposite or what should have happened?

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-24-2004).]

I thought I had touched on that issue. If you're reffering to

quote:Jesus was sinless, and also recieved death as a reward for his sinlessness. God permitted this to happen. If you can understand this, then you are at a beginning of transforming your mind and the way you think into the only truly revolutionary thought.

and the reference to Adam in that same post- recieving death for sinlessness, theres several explanations.

One is that the supposed martyrdom of Jesus represents the end to gullible (yet innocent) hedonism. The burden of humanity is to take responsiblity for their 'sins' and make them a conscious part of their day to day life. By being sinless and accepting the fate of martyrdom, Jesus meant to spread selflessness in the form of dogma to the pagan masses of the world. And he succeeded.

This is only one explanation and if it isn't what you're looking for elaborate please.

quote:Originally posted by Tchort:

...By being sinless and accepting the fate of martyrdom, Jesus meant to spread selflessness...This is only one explanation and if it isn't what you're looking for elaborate please.

So you're saying he set the standard for people to take responsibility for their sins, because he, Jesus, took responsibility even when he was sinless, so they certainly should when they are sinful.

The problem is that they could reason instead that you might as well go ahead and sin, because even if you are sinless you are going to be punished. So I don't get that.

And the other problem is that that explanation does not help define just what is, or isn't, a sin. Not a small question.

But if you look at it from the point of view that God was sending the message that even the most critical question that humans can have...will we live or die...does not have one correct answer, then that is a truly unique thought that is revolutionary. And after some thought it can also be seen that it defines what sin is, or isn't.

And one aside to hopefully pique you interest; Jesus came not only to promote selflessnes, but also to promote selfishness.

quote:Originally posted by Fascistsmasher:

He fulfilled absolutely 0 Jewish prophecies... ass. If youre going to make statements like that at least do some fucking research.

Whatever. This has already been well discussed on this forum a couple of months ago.

quote:So you're saying he set the standard for people to take responsibility for their sins, because he, Jesus, took responsibility even when he was sinless, so they certainly should when they are sinful.

Yes.

quote:The problem is that they could reason instead that you might as well go ahead and sin, because even if you are sinless you are going to be punished. So I don't get that.

Well, Christianity was the first religion to take hold of the West that promoted piety instead of self-gain, justice through a religious institution instead of by vigilante or secular authorities, etc etc etc. 'The people' didn't have much say anyway, most of Europe was converted to Christianity by the tip of a sword.

quote:And the other problem is that that explanation does not help define just what is, or isn't, a sin. Not a small question.

I think it is a pretty small question, only because if you look at what constitutes sin throughout the bible: usury, sodomy/homo-bisexuality, murder for personal gain or vigilante justice, war for money, etc. Or if you just look at Roman traditions (a lot of emporers were homo/bisexual, engaged in sodomy with young boys, backstabbed and killed competitors, killed their own parents or parents killed children to keep or gain power, etc) they are considered evil in every way in the bible.

Pretty much anything that could be interpreted as hedonism or 'feels good' physically is pretty much a sin.

quote:But if you look at it from the point of view that God was sending the message that even the most critical question that humans can have...will we live or die...does not have one correct answer, then that is a truly unique thought that is revolutionary. And after some thought it can also be seen that it defines what sin is, or isn't.

It's been looked at in history before. The puritans, for example. Calvinism and predestination tackles this question directly and the results weren't pretty for the population.

quote:And one aside to hopefully pique you interest; Jesus came not only to promote selflessnes, but also to promote selfishness.

Explain.

quote:Pretty much anything that could be interpreted as hedonism or 'feels good' physically is pretty much a sin.

I think that this is a pretty common misunderstanding, both within christendom and the wider world. I doubt God would give us world that can be so pleasurable if it were a sin- think of the Garden of Eden. As C.S. Lewis said, "God is a hedonist at heart".

I think the more accurate definition of sin, within christianity, is anything that goes against loving God and loving others with all your heart and mind- anything that destroys community and relationship. i.e. selfishness/greed and pride are probably closer to defining sin.

Edit: Missing word

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 07-26-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Tchort:

Explain.



quote:'The people' didn't have much say anyway, most of Europe was converted to Christianity by the tip of a sword.

That's a good point, and its true that the "people" in general don't really evaluate religion or think about it very much. So christians in general aren't accepting Jesus as much as they are accepting a religion that they grew up with, or that is "sold" to them as something other than what it really is.

quote:I think it is a pretty small question, only because if you look at what constitutes sin throughout the bible: usury, sodomy/homo-bisexuality, murder for personal gain or vigilante justice, war for money, etc. Or if you just look at Roman traditions (a lot of emporers were homo/bisexual, engaged in sodomy with young boys, backstabbed and killed competitors, killed their own parents or parents killed children to keep or gain power, etc) they are considered evil in every way in the bible.

I don't really think it is so straight-forward and everything that seems to be a sin in the Bible in one part, seems to be condoned somewhere else or from a different viewpoint. Marriage and adultery for example...Abraham had sex with all these different women...God loved him. So I think the definition of sin as being various practices or activities comes up lacking.

What is or isn't a sin is often argued about. You chose somewhat clear cut examples, but there are many that are not clear.

quote:It's been looked at in history before. The puritans, for example. Calvinism and predestination tackles this question directly and the results weren't pretty for the population.

The point, as I said, that Jesus was making is that questions about death, even death, do not have one correct answer. Calvinists and whoever else were looking for one correct answer to these questions. Thats why the results were ugly.

Even though Jesus was sinless (in practice or in theory) he recieved death as a reward. Why did this happen?

And why was Jesus promoting selfishness, as well as selflessness? Because he was promoting only truth and the truth is that if you are selfless this will eventually lead to personal gain, even if its not what you thought it would be.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

I think the more accurate definition of sin, within christianity, is anything that goes against loving God and loving others with all your heart and mind-...

This is a pretty good definition, but one weakness of it is that love isn't defined, and you'll have a pretty hard time finding a sustainable definition.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

This is a pretty good definition, but one weakness of it is that love isn't defined, and you'll have a pretty hard time finding a sustainable definition.



Love may or may not be defined, but it described well... I Cor 13... boy, i love this chapter.. have i said that before?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

... I Cor 13...

I agree, it is defined there, and you only need these four words to do it: "Love believes all things"

Well, the New Model didn't read any posts prior to his own, so if this has been said, don't worry about it, because repitition can be a good thing. Now, if you remember, God created Adam and Eve to exist in Eden in harmony with all that surrounds them, or something to that effect. Satan, who had just been cast out of Heaven with all his rebel angels and demigods was still pissed off at God for booting his ass. Satan builds Pandemonium, and has a meeting on how they should get back at God. They agree on Satan's idea that he alone should travel out of Hell through Chaos to see if the Scriptures, which state that God will create another being and another place of existance, are true. God already knows that Satan will pull off the corrupting of Adam and Eve, and needs something big, like really big, the wil; make up for their sins, so that he can take them back into Heaven. Come on, after a fuck up like that, God needs some collateral for their sins. Well, Jesus finds this out, 'cause he is so close with God, and says 'Hey, Pop, why don't you let my sacrifice my life for the sins of the world, so that they may join us in Heaven and Bliss?'

God isn't so keen on the idea, but he accepts the Son's sacrifice for the sins of the world.

You know the rest, Satan corrupts humanity, Jesus is killed, religions are formed. All that's left is the end of days.

Question asked; question answered.



ModelFifteen

the thing i like about god creating us in his image, is that god must be one fucked up looking dude. just think about the 10 ugliest people you know, throw in a mental picture of 10 people with downs syndrome or some other physically deforming disability, and don't forget the elephant man! and you got GOD!

that's why I think god on south park is pretty dead on.hahah