This does not simply apply to Jesus. It applies to Moses, Mohammed, and a bunch of other prophets.

Consider this (Russel's argument): Dictators are people who demand obedience. If you do not obey, you are punished. Apply this to Jesus and the Judeo-Christian God: You either obey, or you suffer forever, tortured in hell and eternally suffering in the hands of anti-Christs. Thus Jesus is simply a dictator, someone who demands obedience or punishes you. This is very similar to what every single dictator, from Genghis Khan to Stalin to Hitler, did.

Consider other examples - Forgiveness. You have to "beg" for forgiveness. Is this not simply what a completely narcissistic person would do? Basically, Jesus wants you to kiss his ass so you would have a ticket to heaven.

Another example - anyone who really knows Christianity knows that the 4 books of the Bible are 4 books out of about 90. At a council organized by Constantine, clergy VOTED on which books to include in the Bible. Has any of you read the other books? In one of the other books, called Infancy 1 (there are 2 of them), Jesus is walking with Joseph, when a young man slams into him and runs off in a rush. Do you know what Jesus does? He KILLS him. Is that really what a "good" person would do? Kill someone who slammed into them?

Now, if you say that all these examples should not be taken literally, if you say the Bible is basically an allegory and full of metaphors, then you basically deny your religion. Which part of the Bible is to be taken literally? Which part figuratively? Should it ALL be taken figuratively? Is the person of Jesus itself a metaphor?

Discuss.

Hmm... Jesus kills them in direct contradiction with the 10 commandments. Christianity worships somebody who is a written sinner of one of the greatest sins written by god, in their own unarguable books, and they try to follow his ways to be perfect enough to get into heaven. Perhaps it would be more logical just to follow in gods footsteps because Jesus obviously acted as no more than a mortal. Jesus is not worship worthy, he is faulted like any other mortal and commits not only sins but the greatest of them.

Consider this (Russel's argument): Dictators are people who demand obedience. If you do not obey, you are punished. Apply this to Jesus and the Judeo-Christian God: You either obey, or you suffer forever, tortured in hell and eternally suffering in the hands of anti-Christs. Thus Jesus is simply a dictator, someone who demands obedience or punishes you. This is very similar to what every single dictator, from Genghis Khan to Stalin to Hitler, did.

Consider other examples - Forgiveness. You have to "beg" for forgiveness. Is this not simply what a completely narcissistic person would do? Basically, Jesus wants you to kiss his ass so you would have a ticket to heaven.

Another example - anyone who really knows Christianity knows that the 4 books of the Bible are 4 books out of about 90. At a council organized by Constantine, clergy VOTED on which books to include in the Bible. Has any of you read the other books? In one of the other books, called Infancy 1 (there are 2 of them), Jesus is walking with Joseph, when a young man slams into him and runs off in a rush. Do you know what Jesus does? He KILLS him. Is that really what a "good" person would do? Kill someone who slammed into them?

Now, if you say that all these examples should not be taken literally, if you say the Bible is basically an allegory and full of metaphors, then you basically deny your religion. Which part of the Bible is to be taken literally? Which part figuratively? Should it ALL be taken figuratively? Is the person of Jesus itself a metaphor?

Yes, that's it! You figured God out!

*starts a slow clap*

4 books in the Bible? Hmmmmm? Which 'Bible' are you refering to?

So jesus killed someone? when did jesus kill someone?

quote:Originally posted by Source:

So jesus killed someone? when did jesus kill someone?

They're trying to show that Jesus murders people through the flood. What they fail to realize is, God is the Lawmaker and judges the actions of mankind. Blaming God for their sin is like blaming a judge directly for their crime. Somehow, because the judge convicts them because of what they have done, it's now the judges fault. The law is established for a reason. Those who say they want justice never want to be the one's judged by it. They want everyone else to follow the law, but they themselves feel like they should be exempt. It's typical. That's what they're referencing.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

They're trying to show that Jesus murders people through the flood. What they fail to realize is, God is the Lawmaker and judges the actions of mankind. Blaming God for their sin is like blaming a judge directly for their crime. Somehow, because the judge convicts them because of what they have done, it's now the judges fault. The law is established for a reason. Those who say they want justice never want to be the one's judged by it. They want everyone else to follow the law, but they themselves feel like they should be exempt. It's typical. That's what they're referencing.



Let me ask you a question - DID YOU READ MY POST? I love it when people make responses to your posts without even referencing your post. And as for your previous post... If you disagree, please intelligently discuss. Don't prove me right so easily by dismissing my arguments without opposing them. Be smart.

quote:Originally posted by sii:

Let me ask you a question - DID YOU READ MY POST? I love it when people make responses to your posts without even referencing your post. And as for your previous post... If you disagree, please intelligently discuss. Don't prove me right so easily by dismissing my arguments without opposing them. Be smart.

I read it and then corrected you. You're angry with God, and on a human level, I understand. But there is much more to the text than you may be aware. To alleviate some of the suspense you might be feeling, let me say that you can't flip to the middle of a book and expect to figure out the plot of the novel.

Dude, you did not read his post, and everyone that did read his post knows you didn't. You can't bluff us.

Back to the original post, the Infancy of Thomas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html) is well known to have been a book written to fill the gap between Jesus' age from 5-12, and it's filled with plenty of rediculous phenomena with the intention of telling humorous stories rather than anything profound. I don't see any problem with this perishing along with the rest of the Apocrypha. It's certainly not as important as some other apocrypha, such as the other Apocalypse texts.

In any case, I think I disagree with the overall sentiment that Jesus/God is a dictator neccesarily, as according to Christian doctrine, one can murder/rape or whatever and still get into Heaven if one finds repentance. I do, however, agree that Jesus' demand for forgiveness is certainly unneccesary and comes off as overtly narcissistic. If God truly "so loved the world," such a system based on submitance and servitude wouldn't be neccesary. How does God even respect us if me must act this way for Him?

In other words, if you love someone, you don't make them bend over for you. God doesn't love us, he pities us as insects.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

All pain we come into is our own fault, you're blaming someone else for your own actions. How does that make sense...?

Are you responding to me? I don't understand.

You can't bluff us.

Um....... Okay. I wasn't aware that I was bluffing about anything.

Infancy of Thomas[/URL] is well known to have been a book written to fill the gap between Jesus' age from 5-12, and it's filled with plenty of rediculous phenomena with the intention of telling humorous stories rather than anything profound.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more that it's ridiculous. It's cleary a fraudulent document written well after the supposed author died, which is why it was never canonized. As you pointed out, it has nothing profound in it. The Bible doesn't just have stories in it. All the stories that are told are geared toward a meaningful purpose, not just to tell silly stories about childhood.

I do, however, agree that Jesus' demand for forgiveness is certainly unneccesary and comes off as overtly narcissistic. If God truly "so loved the world," such a system based on submitance and servitude wouldn't be neccesary. How does God even respect us if me must act this way for Him?

As I said earlier, I understand from a human perspective why people have an aversion to this. But suffice it to say that it's very much a broad connotation of what God is actually saying. God's demands are in the best interest of man, because He made man, and knows the heart of man intimately. If God was truly 'demanding' worship, He could accomplish it by making you, me, and the other guy automotns at any given moment. (I realize that many don't believe the Bible.. I'm just saying, from a theological outlook, this is the case whether or not you believe in the validity of the Bible or not.) But God, in His infinite knowlegde, knows that love, really isn't love, without the choice. How could love (which is truly the premise of worship, not some system of idolatry), be love without the choice? You can't force somebody to love you. Likewise, you can't understand love apart from faith. For instance, your parents can tell you that they love you and even manifest outwardly through various avenues, but ultimately, it's all taken on faith. So, then, worship truly encapsulates love, and vice-versa.

Now, I understand why people ask, "But if God loves me, how could He condemn me to perdition?" Again, this is an excellent question from a human perspective. But you have to understand that it is us, who condemns ourselves. God is holy. Holiness is not something easily understood by man.

How can God judge us? Through holiness. "But if God's Law is unyielding then how can He also forgive us?" Answer: His holiness. This is a charcteristic that belongs to God alone.

In other words, if you love someone, you don't make them bend over for you. God doesn't love us, he pities us as insects.

God's love is perfect. Justice, is an act of love! And forgiveness and mercy is an act of love! The two are completely homolguous and inseperable. And thank God it is this way.

quote:Originally posted by ate:

All pain we come into is our own fault, you're blaming someone else for your own actions. How does that make sense...?

Certainly not.... I don't see how you misunderstood my post. Can you elaborate?

quote:

As I said earlier, I understand from a human perspective why people have an aversion to this. But suffice it to say that it's very much a broad connotation of what God is actually saying. God's demands are in the best interest of man, because He made man, and knows the heart of man intimately. If God was truly 'demanding' worship, He could accomplish it by making you, me, and the other guy automotns at any given moment. (I realize that many don't believe the Bible.. I'm just saying, from a theological outlook, this is the case whether or not you believe in the validity of the Bible or not.) But God, in His infinite knowlegde, knows that love, really isn't love, without the choice. How could love (which is truly the premise of worship, not some system of idolatry), be love without the choice? You can't force somebody to love you. Likewise, you can't understand love apart from faith. For instance, your parents can tell you that they love you and even manifest outwardly through various avenues, but ultimately, it's all taken on faith. So, then, worship truly encapsulates love, and vice-versa.

Now, I understand why people ask, "But if God loves me, how could He condemn me to perdition?" Again, this is an excellent question from a human perspective. But you have to understand that it is us, who condemns ourselves. God is holy. Holiness is not something easily understood by man.

How can God judge us? Through holiness. "But if God's Law is unyielding then how can He also forgive us?" Answer: His holiness. This is a charcteristic that belongs to God alone.



First off, "Worship encapsulates love." I disagree, I have never been in a loving relationship based on one person submitting to the other. Rather, I have always been of the belief that respect is an important part of love, and you cannot love someone if you do not respect them (a sign of submission should not be required). Does God's "Holiness" demand exception?

"Humans condemn themselves." I'll ignore the obvious contradictions between free will and the Christian conception of omnipotence (i.e. THEY DO NOT WORK TOGETHER). This argument is unconvincing because not every human on Earth is aware of the Christian God, and therefore could not be making an active descision to spurn Him. Or maybe they do know in their hearts because of "Holiness" but they refuse to accept it.

You end by saying that God's "Holiness" allows Him to forgive those who love Him. Well, if he's so damned holy, why can't this allow him to forgive everyone? Even those who refuse to get down on their knees and submit (or is it "show love") to Him?

These demands are a little excessive considering that He doesn't even exist.

quote:

God's love is perfect. Justice, is an act of love! And forgiveness and mercy is an act of love! The two are completely homolguous and inseperable. And thank God it is this way.

Justice is the love of an idealogy, not of man. How could god love man if he condemns our "joys of the flesh"? Does he not also love our flesh? Does he not also love our ability to deny him and break his commandments? Note that there is no forgiveness or mercy for those who do not love God. So does he not love all man? I refuse to accept that He can love someone and send them to Hell for eternity, the punishment does not fit the crime.

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Justice is the love of an idealogy, not of man. How could god love man if he condemns our "joys of the flesh"? Does he not also love our flesh? Does he not also love our ability to deny him and break his commandments? Note that there is no forgiveness or mercy for those who do not love God. So does he not love all man? I refuse to accept that He can love someone and send them to Hell for eternity, the punishment does not fit the crime.

I see you're using the satanic argument. In that case, you're right.... God hates us all. Keep doing whatever it is you do.

Just answer me this one question: Why are those that deny His existance and/or His omnipotence, keep talking about Him? Why does the atheist spend an inordinate amount of time on something he alleges doesn't even exist to begin with?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I see you're using the satanic argument. In that case, you're right.... God hates us all. Keep doing whatever it is you do.

Just answer me this one question: Why are those that deny His existance and/or His omnipotence, keep talking about Him? Why does the atheist spend an inordinate amount of time on something he alleges doesn't even exist to begin with?



Personally? I enjoy debate. Also, I prefer the term "agnostic," as I believe the existence of a God to be wholly possible, it simply has absolutely no bearing on my life.

I was not aware that my argument has a previously conceived name, but I'm sad to see that you've dropped the topic and seemed to have made a weak attempt at an ad hominem circumstantial. In any case, if you're interested in my favorite argument against Christianity, that being the mutual exclusivity of God's omnipotence and free will, I'd be happy to expound that as well.

[This message has been edited by Shadout Mapes (edited 11-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



4 books in the Bible? Hmmmmm? Which 'Bible' are you refering to?

It's obvious that he meant the Gospel, kthx.

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Personally? I enjoy debate. Also, I prefer the term "agnostic," as I believe the existence of a God to be wholly possible, it simply has absolutely no bearing on my life.

I was not aware that my argument has a previously conceived name, but I'm sad to see that you've dropped the topic and seemed to have made a weak attempt at an ad hominem circumstantial. In any case, if you're interested in my favorite argument against Christianity, that being the mutual exclusivity of God's omnipotence and free will, I'd be happy to expound that as well.



If you want to post about God's omnipotence and freewill, knock yourself out. But,

you never answered my question, which is why unbelievers are so totally devoted to something they allege doesn't exist. And, even if you're an Agnostic, we all know that's just 'soft-atheism'. I've never met an Agnostic that leaned more towards God than away from Him. I used to be Agnostic, so I can speak a little bit about the subject. I am pleased, however, that you are agnostic as opposed to being an outright atheist, which is an impossibility.

haha.

Threads like these are why I dont post here anymore.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you want to post about God's omnipotence and freewill, knock yourself out. But,

you never answered my question, which is why unbelievers are so totally devoted to something they allege doesn't exist. And, even if you're an Agnostic, we all know that's just 'soft-atheism'. I've never met an Agnostic that leaned more towards God than away from Him. I used to be Agnostic, so I can speak a little bit about the subject. I am pleased, however, that you are agnostic as opposed to being an outright atheist, which is an impossibility.



Why should I be expected to answer on behalf of all athiests? Any statement I make can be disputed. Maybe because the whole western world in indoctrined with it's shitstained morality? Maybe because it's followers constantly tell us we're going to Hell for all eternity? Maybe some used to accept it but then got hit by reality? It doesn't matter.

[This message has been edited by Shadout Mapes (edited 11-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

Why should I be expected to answer on behalf of all athiests? Any statement I make can be disputed. Maybe because the whole western world in indoctrined with it's shitstained morality? Maybe because it's followers constantly tell us we're going to Hell for all eternity? Maybe some used to accept it but then got hit by reality? It doesn't matter.



I think it is very relevant being that the majority religion that is being raked over the coals is Christianity. No other topic gets more play than this. Jesus gets more lipservice than anyone else in the history of mankind. That doesn't strike you as odd? The man clearly has a profound effect on virtually everyone. I think that says alot.

Poor Christianity, always being raked through the coals! Woe, woe!

Someday, my friends, someday they will be accepted, mayhaps even common! Oh, how I pray for a day when a Christian will be allowed to display their faith openly and symbolically in public (perhaps wearing a symbol of their faith around their knecks)! Maybe someday we shall see a day where Christianity is a majority religion, where it's ideas will be accepted and indoctrined throughout Western Culture (perhaps for 1800 years?). Maybe even, God-willing, we will have an openly Christian president! Or 43! Consecutively!

But enough of me stealing from Jon Stewart. Dude, if you don't think the Muslims get much shit, you are sorely mistaken. Majority ideas have always been attacked or questioned (as they should be). Stop being a martyr.

But enough of me stealing from Jon Stewart. Dude, if you don't think the Muslims get much shit, you are sorely mistaken. Majority ideas have always been attacked or questioned (as they should be). Stop being a martyr.[/QUOTE]

You obviously missed the entire premise of the post. I said no one else in here is more persecuted and mocked and teased than Christians. My question to you, is why?

Then I said, Jesus gets more lipservice than anyone else in history, whether you love him or hate him. My question to you, is why?

I guess I just don't understand why you can be hostile towards something you don't believe in. That's completely illogical. Therefore, a great deal of it must get under your skin, because somewhere in the recesses of yourself, you know there just might be that chance that you're wrong.

I thought I made it clear in my post that Christianity, as a majority opinion, should be attacked and questioned, especially since it represents some large problems in the eyes of those who oppose it. Besides, look who's accusing who of changing the point here, this wasn't even the point of our argument a second ago, but then you dismissed me for using "Satan's argument" and changed the subject. Now you're accusing me of circumlocution. Read my whole post, for Christ's sake.

[This message has been edited by Shadout Mapes (edited 11-07-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

I thought I made it clear in my post that Christianity, as a majority opinion, should be attacked and questioned, especially since it represents some large problems in the eyes of those who oppose it. Besides, look who's accusing who of changing the point here, this wasn't even the point of our argument a second ago, but then you dismissed me for using "Satan's argument" and changed the subject. Now you're accusing me of circumlocution. Read my whole post, for Christ's sake.

That is the satanic argument. That isn't some jab. The arguments you, and many others make, are identical to that of a Satanist. You know, most satanists do not in any sense of the word, believe in satan or God as an actual deity. Instead, they view the 'morals' of God to counter man's nature given rights to be animalistic. Very few satanists worship the angel, satan.

Your issue with Christianity, it seems to me, is hypocrites. If you recall, Jesus had a big problem with this Himself. But don't measure Christ by Christians. The two will NEVER be synonymous.

Mazda is a god for some wierd iranian religion. He seems pretty wierd.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

God is the Lawmaker and judges the actions of mankind. Blaming God for their sin is like blaming a judge directly for their crime. Somehow, because the judge convicts them because of what they have done, it's now the judges fault. The law is established for a reason. Those who say they want justice never want to be the one's judged by it. They want everyone else to follow the law, but they themselves feel like they should be exempt. It's typical. That's what they're referencing.





First of all, why does God get to arbitrarily make the rules? Because He's bigger than us? And yes, God is responsible for sin. All sin. If God is omnipotent He could have made free-willed, sinless beings; if God is omniscient, then He knew that a vast majority of humanity would burn forever and ever and ever and ever... and ever in Hell (and he would know about the brutal actions Christians have taken against nonbelievers and "heretics"). By creating, well, Creation, God has condoned acts of violence towards those who choose to think for themselves.

And no, I don't want everyone to follow the law. Your generalization is exactly that, a generalization, and is inherently invalid. Both God's laws and society's laws have flaws. Yes, we should love each other and take care of the earth. No, we should not put people to death for disobeying their parents or for disobeying our invisible friend in the sky.



weramthewatermelon, Ahura Mazda is God for Zoroastrianism, the religion that first really popularized the whole "Day of Judgement" idea.

In Christianity, Jesus always forgives. You don't really have to beg for shit, just as long as you believe in him, he'll give you the get out of jail free card.

That in itself is pretty sad, I rather like the Catholic god.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

[/B]

By not responding to my points, I'm only left to assume that the Satanic argument disproves yours. Correct?