Is Jesus Peaceful?

David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Is Jesus Peaceful?

A response to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The SAB is right in saying that the answer to the question of Is Jesus Peaceful? Is both yes and no. Depending upon various factors which can be seen by a careful examination of the verses given.


[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? Yes.


Luke 2:14 From this verse is derived the term 'Peace on Earth and goodwill toward, or to all men' during the pagan celebration of Christmas. It is interesting in the context of this response to point out a few more accurate translations than the KJV, which read: NIV; "Peace to men on whom his favor rests." NASB; "Peace among men with whom He is pleased." Amplified; "Peace among men with whom He is well pleased [men of goodwill, of His favor." NLT; "Peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased." ESV; "Peace among those with whom he is pleased!" CEV: "Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God." ASV; "Peace among men in whom he is well pleased."

The point being that Jesus' birth was an indication of peace in the distant future for some, but not all. This good will from God to men with whom He is pleased is none other than the salvation through Christ Jesus of those who would accept it. The meek inherit the earth once sin is removed and they live forever in peace only then. For those who would continue in sin and reject Jehovah God and his standards there can be no peace. Only destruction.

John 14:27 deals with a specific peace which differs from the worldly peace. The false sense of peace of the world brings a false sense of comfort. Temporal and subject to war, destruction and death. The peace which Jesus speaks of gives a genuine promise for the end of these things. Life everlasting in paradise conditions with a clear conscience and peace.

At John 16:33 Jesus said he had overcome, or, depending on the translation, conquered the world. Through their faith his followers could conquer the world as well. (1 John 5:4 / Romans 8:35, 37-39) No matter what the world throws at them they have the inner peace their faith brings them. Through persecution, death, sickness or any evil the world may throw at them.

Acts 10:36 mentions the word of God in association with peace. Psalm 107:20 indicates this would heal them and provide an escape from the pit.

[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? No.

Matthew 10:34-38 and Luke 12:51-53 convey the idea that the message of peace which Jesus brought would be divisive. There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division.


Luke 22:36 is a rather interesting scripture, I think, especially as used by the SAB in support of the notion that Jesus isn‘t peaceful. Further examination of the verse indicates the opposite and should have been used for Jesus being peaceful. Luke 22:36, 38, 49-51, Matthew 26:51-53 and John 18:10-11 tells how Jesus instructed his followers to bring the two swords when he would be captured in order to teach them that it wasn't his intention to bring a literal sword to fight as the Jewish factions were fighting among themselves at that time. Those who fought with the sword would perish by the sword.

Revelation 19:11 is easier to understand when the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is correctly understood. God created mankind to live forever in peace upon Earth. Satan deceived Eve and Adam willfully went the way of sin. Resulting in death. Since Adam had been given charge of Earth this brought death to all mankind. The question raised by Adam's sin was a question of sovereignty. The Bible, then, gives the account as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. The Knowledge of what was good and what was bad was Adam's choice to reject God. Jehovah had told Adam that this would result in death because as Creator he knew what was best for man. Much of the destruction that takes place in the end is a product of man's doing. They would destroy everything. In order for God's purpose of everlasting life in peace upon Earth to be fulfilled the wicked - those who don't appreciate the Creator's guidance and protection, must be destroyed.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, the question that

 Well, the question that comes to mind is just which jesus you have in mind.

 

Sure, the jesus of the textus receptus is pretty much as you describe. However, the textus receptus represents many centuries of copyist errors which were “fixed” by later copyists, often not in accordance with what we now know of from the earliest fragments but rather to match the preconceptions of the time in which a specific version was copied.

 

Add to that that some of the NT is now generally accepted to be outright forgeries which were not detected by the council of Nicaea (as they were building a set of books that met their specific preconceptions and were even an attempt to forge a consensus on what jesus may have been).

 

Add to that stuff that was added much later because it sounded good, such as the last several versus of Mark.

 

Pretty much the textus recptus was just a way to take all of the various version that were then current and mash them together to add yet another level of consensus on what ought to be in the bible.

 

Now compare that against what is in the earliest fragments that we have.

 

That jesus was often made angry when people asked pretty basic questions. He may have been run out of Egypt as a kid because he kep using his god powers to murder his playmates. The later jesus may have used gay sex as a ritual just like many of the standard mystery schools of the time.

 

Then too, there is always going to be the unresolvable question of whether he even existed as anything more than a template that his followers wrote details onto to sound like a reasonable guy.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:A

David Henson wrote:

A response to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The SAB is right in saying that the answer to the question of Is Jesus Peaceful? Is both yes and no. Depending upon various factors which can be seen by a careful examination of the verses given.


[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? Yes.


Luke 2:14 From this verse is derived the term 'Peace on Earth and goodwill toward, or to all men' during the pagan celebration of Christmas. It is interesting in the context of this response to point out a few more accurate translations than the KJV, which read: NIV; "Peace to men on whom his favor rests." NASB; "Peace among men with whom He is pleased." Amplified; "Peace among men with whom He is well pleased [men of goodwill, of His favor." NLT; "Peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased." ESV; "Peace among those with whom he is pleased!" CEV: "Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God." ASV; "Peace among men in whom he is well pleased."

The point being that Jesus' birth was an indication of peace in the distant future for some, but not all. This good will from God to men with whom He is pleased is none other than the salvation through Christ Jesus of those who would accept it. The meek inherit the earth once sin is removed and they live forever in peace only then. For those who would continue in sin and reject Jehovah God and his standards there can be no peace. Only destruction.

John 14:27 deals with a specific peace which differs from the worldly peace. The false sense of peace of the world brings a false sense of comfort. Temporal and subject to war, destruction and death. The peace which Jesus speaks of gives a genuine promise for the end of these things. Life everlasting in paradise conditions with a clear conscience and peace.

At John 16:33 Jesus said he had overcome, or, depending on the translation, conquered the world. Through their faith his followers could conquer the world as well. (1 John 5:4 / Romans 8:35, 37-39) No matter what the world throws at them they have the inner peace their faith brings them. Through persecution, death, sickness or any evil the world may throw at them.

Acts 10:36 mentions the word of God in association with peace. Psalm 107:20 indicates this would heal them and provide an escape from the pit.

[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? No.

Matthew 10:34-38 and Luke 12:51-53 convey the idea that the message of peace which Jesus brought would be divisive. There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division.


Luke 22:36 is a rather interesting scripture, I think, especially as used by the SAB in support of the notion that Jesus isn‘t peaceful. Further examination of the verse indicates the opposite and should have been used for Jesus being peaceful. Luke 22:36, 38, 49-51, Matthew 26:51-53 and John 18:10-11 tells how Jesus instructed his followers to bring the two swords when he would be captured in order to teach them that it wasn't his intention to bring a literal sword to fight as the Jewish factions were fighting among themselves at that time. Those who fought with the sword would perish by the sword.

Revelation 19:11 is easier to understand when the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is correctly understood. God created mankind to live forever in peace upon Earth. Satan deceived Eve and Adam willfully went the way of sin. Resulting in death. Since Adam had been given charge of Earth this brought death to all mankind. The question raised by Adam's sin was a question of sovereignty. The Bible, then, gives the account as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. The Knowledge of what was good and what was bad was Adam's choice to reject God. Jehovah had told Adam that this would result in death because as Creator he knew what was best for man. Much of the destruction that takes place in the end is a product of man's doing. They would destroy everything. In order for God's purpose of everlasting life in peace upon Earth to be fulfilled the wicked - those who don't appreciate the Creator's guidance and protection, must be destroyed.

 

I don't buy one bit of this. There are also verses where he demands you abandon your own family if they don't follow him. And "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace but a sword".

IRRELEVANT!

There is no such thing as godsperm and it takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby, thus making the virgin birth story complete bunk.

Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, much less 3 days of death, thus making zombie god claims absurd.

BUT, if you want to claim that Jesus was peaceful, it still doesn't change the tyrannical prick of a character in the OT and in Revelations.

Here is the plot of the bible in 3 parts,

1. Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt.

2. Thats not working, I'll sacrifice myself to myself so I can save you from me beating the shit out of you for eternity.

3. I'll just go back to being a violent vindictive prick and keep up with my scorched earth policy, "If you wont kiss my ass I will torture you forever".

The bible is an immoral book based on the "might makes right" feudal tribalism of the kingdoms whom thought that their power was from above.

Not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence of thoughts being from an origin outside a material process, much less a magical invisible super  brain with super powers.

Quote:
There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division.

NO, what causes division are humans, not Jesus, not Allah, not Thor. There are people who refuse to test their claims and use their utopia as politics to project their desires on other humans.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:A

David Henson wrote:

A response to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The SAB is right in saying that the answer to the question of Is Jesus Peaceful? Is both yes and no. Depending upon various factors which can be seen by a careful examination of the verses given.


[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? Yes.


Luke 2:14 From this verse is derived the term 'Peace on Earth and goodwill toward, or to all men' during the pagan celebration of Christmas. It is interesting in the context of this response to point out a few more accurate translations than the KJV, which read: NIV; "Peace to men on whom his favor rests." NASB; "Peace among men with whom He is pleased." Amplified; "Peace among men with whom He is well pleased [men of goodwill, of His favor." NLT; "Peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased." ESV; "Peace among those with whom he is pleased!" CEV: "Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God." ASV; "Peace among men in whom he is well pleased."

The point being that Jesus' birth was an indication of peace in the distant future for some, but not all. This good will from God to men with whom He is pleased is none other than the salvation through Christ Jesus of those who would accept it. The meek inherit the earth once sin is removed and they live forever in peace only then. For those who would continue in sin and reject Jehovah God and his standards there can be no peace. Only destruction.

John 14:27 deals with a specific peace which differs from the worldly peace. The false sense of peace of the world brings a false sense of comfort. Temporal and subject to war, destruction and death. The peace which Jesus speaks of gives a genuine promise for the end of these things. Life everlasting in paradise conditions with a clear conscience and peace.

At John 16:33 Jesus said he had overcome, or, depending on the translation, conquered the world. Through their faith his followers could conquer the world as well. (1 John 5:4 / Romans 8:35, 37-39) No matter what the world throws at them they have the inner peace their faith brings them. Through persecution, death, sickness or any evil the world may throw at them.

Acts 10:36 mentions the word of God in association with peace. Psalm 107:20 indicates this would heal them and provide an escape from the pit.

[SAB] Is Jesus Peaceful? No.

Matthew 10:34-38 and Luke 12:51-53 convey the idea that the message of peace which Jesus brought would be divisive. There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division.


Luke 22:36 is a rather interesting scripture, I think, especially as used by the SAB in support of the notion that Jesus isn‘t peaceful. Further examination of the verse indicates the opposite and should have been used for Jesus being peaceful. Luke 22:36, 38, 49-51, Matthew 26:51-53 and John 18:10-11 tells how Jesus instructed his followers to bring the two swords when he would be captured in order to teach them that it wasn't his intention to bring a literal sword to fight as the Jewish factions were fighting among themselves at that time. Those who fought with the sword would perish by the sword.

Revelation 19:11 is easier to understand when the entire message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is correctly understood. God created mankind to live forever in peace upon Earth. Satan deceived Eve and Adam willfully went the way of sin. Resulting in death. Since Adam had been given charge of Earth this brought death to all mankind. The question raised by Adam's sin was a question of sovereignty. The Bible, then, gives the account as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus. The Knowledge of what was good and what was bad was Adam's choice to reject God. Jehovah had told Adam that this would result in death because as Creator he knew what was best for man. Much of the destruction that takes place in the end is a product of man's doing. They would destroy everything. In order for God's purpose of everlasting life in peace upon Earth to be fulfilled the wicked - those who don't appreciate the Creator's guidance and protection, must be destroyed.

 

So, god deliberately divides people and deems some to be "better" than others  ? He knew that alot of people would not accept the message, so he sends down his son, knowing that alot of people are not going to believe and are going to be denied eternal life. So he set it up for a majority of humans to fail in other words ?

But that notion of being "better" than some people, that the Theists cling to, only hinges upon eternal rewards ? Wonder what kind of person could enjoy eternal bliss knowing that people beneath him are burning in hell ? Wonder what sort of god could create eternal punishment for a finite lifetime.

So the man with the ability to heal the sick and raise the dead, was only concerned with people "believing" in his twisted messages.

Too bad. If he had all of this knowledge, he could have told the people about better ways to cultivate agriculture, better methods of medicine, and he could have pointed them in a few directions that could have lead to more modern inventions. Instead, he chose to spend all of his time preaching the necessity of "believing" in him, praising his insane father and thanking his insane father.

Odd that the god of the sky seems to hold the notions of praying to him, thanking him and worshipping him in higher regard than anything else. He carefully hides the physical proof of his existence, leaves behind so called clues that are perfectly explainable through natural phenomena, gives people ration, intellect, reason and imagination to look for answers, leaves behind an obscure text of contradictions that is supposed to contain answers and THEN punishes and condemns people for their doubt ? Wow.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I don't buy

Brian37 wrote:

 

I don't buy one bit of this. There are also verses where he demands you abandon your own family if they don't follow him. And "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace but a sword".

IRRELEVANT!

There is no such thing as godsperm and it takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby, thus making the virgin birth story complete bunk.

Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, much less 3 days of death, thus making zombie god claims absurd.

BUT, if you want to claim that Jesus was peaceful, it still doesn't change the tyrannical prick of a character in the OT and in Revelations.

Here is the plot of the bible in 3 parts,

1. Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt.

2. Thats not working, I'll sacrifice myself to myself so I can save you from me beating the shit out of you for eternity.

3. I'll just go back to being a violent vindictive prick and keep up with my scorched earth policy, "If you wont kiss my ass I will torture you forever".

The bible is an immoral book based on the "might makes right" feudal tribalism of the kingdoms whom thought that their power was from above.

Not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence of thoughts being from an origin outside a material process, much less a magical invisible super  brain with super powers.

Quote:
There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division.

NO, what causes division are humans, not Jesus, not Allah, not Thor. There are people who refuse to test their claims and use their utopia as politics to project their desires on other humans.

 

 

Oh, how am I going to answer this?

 

It is just an emotional reaction. Brian. It is just a show.

 

An Okay show for the cathedral. I don't care for the shit.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Read up on the Bible Harley,

Read up on the Bible Harley, you may learn something. Shut your fucking smart ass idiot in my direction, you know? You sound like an idiot Christian to me.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Read up

David Henson wrote:

Read up on the Bible Harley, you may learn something. Shut your fucking smart ass idiot in my direction, you know? You sound like an idiot Christian to me.

lol, someone rode the bitchbus this morning. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 418
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 Well, the question that comes to mind is just which jesus you have in mind.

 

Sure, the jesus of the textus receptus is pretty much as you describe. However, the textus receptus represents many centuries of copyist errors which were “fixed” by later copyists, often not in accordance with what we now know of from the earliest fragments but rather to match the preconceptions of the time in which a specific version was copied.

 

Finally! Sounds like Chiam Witz is living up to the name outside of stupid KISS condoms and cofins. Anybody who would have choosed the name of Gene Simmons over - I don't know - Cher or Spoungebobsquarepants almost already bores the tits off this hog, but actually Gene at least has a semblance of knowledge of the disscusion at hand.

 

I'm wasting my time here with you fucks. As always.

 

Add to that that some of the NT is now generally accepted to be outright forgeries which were not detected by the council of Nicaea (as they were building a set of books that met their specific preconceptions and were even an attempt to forge a consensus on what jesus may have been).

 

Add to that stuff that was added much later because it sounded good, such as the last several versus of Mark.

 

Pretty much the textus recptus was just a way to take all of the various version that were then current and mash them together to add yet another level of consensus on what ought to be in the bible.

 

Now compare that against what is in the earliest fragments that we have.

 

That jesus was often made angry when people asked pretty basic questions. He may have been run out of Egypt as a kid because he kep using his god powers to murder his playmates. The later jesus may have used gay sex as a ritual just like many of the standard mystery schools of the time.

 

Then too, there is always going to be the unresolvable question of whether he even existed as anything more than a template that his followers wrote details onto to sound like a reasonable guy.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, Dave.

 

David Henson wrote:

I'm wasting my time here with you fucks. As always.

 

 

I think there's an instinct to argue against the Christian template, not taking into account your very particular and unusual knowledge of bible. Sometimes it actually sounds like your comprehension or position is evolving though in fairness it's more likely your original position was never fully understood. I still find it hard to comprehend how you can look so frankly into the face of religious doctrine and yet retain your faith.

On the OP, I'd agree that the bible Jesus seems both 'good' and 'bad' and some of the bad is probably what would pass as righteous anger back in the day. I've been contemplating lately the enlightenment jesus represented as far as the various sects of judaism were concerned. Still haven't made it all mesh in my head. But I find many echos of contemporary or slightly earlier writers like Cicero in some of the humanistic elements of the christian faith. 

The messages of the OT and NT are difficult to meld and it seems to me the tension between the authoritarian OT and humanistic NT, notwithstanding the introduction in the NT of of modern dualistic interpretations of truth and even the nature of god, comes from the authors themselves who lived in a different and modern time with new interpretations of reality, justice and self.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:On

Atheistextremist wrote:

On the OP, I'd agree that the bible Jesus seems both 'good' and 'bad' and some of the bad is probably what would pass as righteous anger back in the day. I've been contemplating lately the enlightenment jesus represented as far as the various sects of judaism were concerned. Still haven't made it all mesh in my head. But I find many echos of contemporary or slightly earlier writers like Cicero in some of the humanistic elements of the christian faith. 

 

That's an interesting train of thought...what percentage of the Jesus mythos was original, compared to just an amalgamation of existing ideas?

 

I don't know enough about the general philosophy of the time to comment myself, but it would be a pretty interesting thing to read about.

--------------

I agree with you on the template part though.  It is hard to have these discussions with more unique belief sets, like David, or Mak, or others.  It isn't impossible, but it is deceptive since the language is often identical on the surface.

I suppose it comes down to us being geared towards a specific target audience for the most part.  Spending the time needed to understand a particular minority offshoot isn't very efficient.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Read up

David Henson wrote:

Read up on the Bible Harley, you may learn something. Shut your fucking smart ass idiot in my direction, you know? You sound like an idiot Christian to me.

Well, if that don't convince me of your position being correct I don't know what will.

Perhaps you should pray to god about it.

Of course,reading the bible according to your website, is not just for any bible , it is the SAB and the way that it "properly" needs to be interpreted. Sounds no different than any other ultimate truth nonsense that any religion has twisted around to suit their own needs to line up with their own viewpoints.

I am not impressed. Even with all the catchy sci-fi fantasy pictures and the little latin sentences.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:lol, someone

Ktulu wrote:

lol, someone rode the bitchbus this morning. 

Religion and the bible does so many good things for the mental health of people. Just look at how happy our expert seems to be.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Ktulu

harleysportster wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

lol, someone rode the bitchbus this morning. 

Religion and the bible does so many good things for the mental health of people. Just look at how happy our expert seems to be.

I've responded to him in a different post but he hasn't gotten back to me.  I actually find his straight forward, vulgar approach refreshing, amusing and fitting.  I look forward to more of his insights in the near future.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I agree with

mellestad wrote:

I agree with you on the template part though.  It is hard to have these discussions with more unique belief sets, like David, or Mak, or others.  It isn't impossible, but it is deceptive since the language is often identical on the surface.

I suppose it comes down to us being geared towards a specific target audience for the most part.  Spending the time needed to understand a particular minority offshoot isn't very efficient.

I agree that people like Mak and David make for a much more interesting debate than your average theist.  You can't escape the obvious fact that these individuals still maintain a delusion.  In the movie 'Seven' Brad Pit has an awesome quote: " Just because the fucker has a library card doesn't make him Yoda!".  I think we give these individuals too much credit.  Simply having the brain power to comprehend certain concepts doesn't in itself warrant respect.  It's what you do with that brain power that matters, you have to be able to turn the skeptic eye internally and examine your own erroneous beliefs.  If you fail to do that you deserve even less intellectual respect then someone that doesn't posses the mental capacity.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:mellestad

Ktulu wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I agree with you on the template part though.  It is hard to have these discussions with more unique belief sets, like David, or Mak, or others.  It isn't impossible, but it is deceptive since the language is often identical on the surface.

I suppose it comes down to us being geared towards a specific target audience for the most part.  Spending the time needed to understand a particular minority offshoot isn't very efficient.

I agree that people like Mak and David make for a much more interesting debate than your average theist.  You can't escape the obvious fact that these individuals still maintain a delusion.  In the movie 'Seven' Brad Pit has an awesome quote: " Just because the fucker has a library card doesn't make him Yoda!".  I think we give these individuals too much credit.  Simply having the brain power to comprehend certain concepts doesn't in itself warrant respect.  It's what you do with that brain power that matters, you have to be able to turn the skeptic eye internally and examine your own erroneous beliefs.  If you fail to do that you deserve even less intellectual respect then someone that doesn't posses the mental capacity.  

Heh, nice quote.  That is a great movie...not a movie I want to watch over and over, but it made such an impact the first time I saw it I still remember the whole thing.  The climax is one of the best in cinema.  Anyway.

 

That could be...but honestly, once we make a decision we have a psychological need to justify it, and the more important the decision the more we feel pressure to justify.

Can you imagine how much pressure that must be if you've been a hard core theist who has invested a significant portion of their lives to this?  To abandon that is to admit you've wasted a lot of time...sort of like when people keep spending money on something that is never going to work, but they can't stop spending money because they've already put so much into it.  Plus, some theists have that come to Jesus emotional moment and that is also something they have to reconcile.  Realizing that your own mind isn't necessarily the most reliable thing is hard to swallow.  Many people never manage it, which explains all the UFO abductees and near death experience types.  It doesn't matter what you tell them, they have faith in themselves more than faith in objective verification and process.

But it isn't a conscious decision, it manifests in this rabid defensiveness and lashing out.  I don't know if that is David, because this is a bit out of character for him, but I've seen quite a few people do this, not just theists.  Happens a lot on political forums too (No Beyond, I'm not talking about you, haha).  You push them into a corner and instead of 'seeing the light' they just get mean and turn off to discussion.  Doesn't always happen though, Luminon is an amazing human being in that regard.

 

Another part of the problem is people with delusional beliefs often have the support of a community.  It is easier to maintain an irrational belief you can't justify if you surround yourself with people who hold the same belief.  Doesn't matter if none of them can make a good case for it, just the fact that they are around recharges you.

 

Now, that applies to atheists just as much as anyone, which is why it is important to not teach atheism, but to teach skepticism, logic and the scientific method.  Those are the tools that will lead to the most change, and the change can come internally.

/soapbox

---------------

Not that I'm perfect or even close to it.  I do stupid, irrational shit all day long.  But I realize that the tools are there and when I hit a difficult issue I do my best to utilize them.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad,interesting that

mellestad,

interesting that you comment that this lashing out is not quite in character for David, I would agree. WTF is it with him this time, is it just a matter of him finally losing patience with us simply not buying into all his carefully worked out ideas?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad,

interesting that you comment that this lashing out is not quite in character for David, I would agree. WTF is it with him this time, is it just a matter of him finally losing patience with us simply not buying into all his carefully worked out ideas?

I don't know.  Considering it was so sudden, and started with the first messages of the day I'm willing to cut him some slack and see what happens, just like when the Captain turns from a friendly Pineapple to a a rude obnoxious sex fiend.

 

If he just got tired it happened awfully fast.  Usually you see a smooth transition from friendly theist to curse spewing phallus.  We'll see.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Although I can understand

Although I can understand why he'd be frustrated.  He's obviously put a massive amount of effort into his belief system, far more than most, and it is also far more personal than most.  His journey in theism has been *his* journey.  The fact that it comes off to many of us as so arbitrary and easily dismissed might be hard to deal with.  I'm not sure what kind of support system he has for his beliefs either.  If he does this in a vacuum I'm...I don't know, impressed?  Sad?  Horrified?  Awed?

 

 

*Edit: I'm sure these somewhat condescending side conversations are very helpful to his state of mind, either way, haha.  But there aren't many people on the forum I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, so there is that although I doubt he'll feel impressed.  For most people I'd already have switched from 'debate and discuss' to 'ridicule and insult'.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:pressure

mellestad wrote:

pressure that must be if you've been a hard core theist who has invested a significant portion of their lives to this?  To abandon that is to admit you've wasted a lot of time...sort of like when people keep spending money on something that is never going to work, but they can't stop spending money because they've already put so much into it.  Plus, some theists have that come to Jesus emotional moment and that is also something they have to reconcile.  Realizing that your own mind isn't necessarily the most reliable thing is hard to swallow.  Many people never manage it, which explains all the UFO abductees and near death experience types.  It doesn't matter what you tell them, they have faith in themselves more than faith in objective verification and process.

Me personally, it was no easy journey to go from hard-core, fundamentalist theist, to a widely different journey of theistic belief before realizing that it was all a lie.

However, I do not feel that I wasted a good portion of my life by having much of it so wrapped up in it.

It has defined a part of my character that can no longer just accept an idea because it sounds good or swallow an absolute because someone tries to dictate it to me.

In other words, I don't think I could be the type of Atheist that I am today if it had not been for all of my years being a theist.

That was one reason why I tried to be  patient and friendly to Fonzie in the "IT WORKS FOR ME" thread. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I agree that

Ktulu wrote:

I agree that people like Mak and David make for a much more interesting debate than your average theist.  You can't escape the obvious fact that these individuals still maintain a delusion.  In the movie 'Seven' Brad Pit has an awesome quote: " Just because the fucker has a library card doesn't make him Yoda!".  I think we give these individuals too much credit.  Simply having the brain power to comprehend certain concepts doesn't in itself warrant respect.  It's what you do with that brain power that matters, you have to be able to turn the skeptic eye internally and examine your own erroneous beliefs.  If you fail to do that you deserve even less intellectual respect then someone that doesn't posses the mental capacity.  

I totally agree 100%.

If you are interested in looking this up, here is all that the SAB (Skeptics Annontated Bible)  is about :

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/preface.html

It is supposed to help you see the Bible they way it should be "intended" to be read.

However, there is quite a large number of criticism of it in the Christian community when you search around.

Once again, your back to square one. Someone making an unproven assertion that they can justify by careful manipulation of a  text that thousands of other sects can not possibly come to any agreement upon over so much as one sentence.

Here is what one Christian page says about it : http://skepticsannotatedbiblerespons.blogspot.com/

Not really anything all that mind boggling to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:BobSpence1

mellestad wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad,

interesting that you comment that this lashing out is not quite in character for David, I would agree. WTF is it with him this time, is it just a matter of him finally losing patience with us simply not buying into all his carefully worked out ideas?

 

I don't know.  Considering it was so sudden, and started with the first messages of the day I'm willing to cut him some slack and see what happens, just like when the Captain turns from a friendly Pineapple to a a rude obnoxious sex fiend.

 

I suspect that he got into Pineapple's special "miss Hyde" formula.   

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

mellestad wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad,

interesting that you comment that this lashing out is not quite in character for David, I would agree. WTF is it with him this time, is it just a matter of him finally losing patience with us simply not buying into all his carefully worked out ideas?

 

I don't know.  Considering it was so sudden, and started with the first messages of the day I'm willing to cut him some slack and see what happens, just like when the Captain turns from a friendly Pineapple to a a rude obnoxious sex fiend.

 

I suspect that he got into Pineapple's special "miss Hyde" formula.   

You know, on the rare occasions that I drink enough to get tipsy, I'm just funny and relaxed, then I get sleepy.

Oddly enough, when sober I'm funny and relaxed and often sleepy.

 

Are people who turn into pricks after booze just, well, pricks?  I don't associate with enough regular drinkers to know.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Answers in

mellestad wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

mellestad wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad,

interesting that you comment that this lashing out is not quite in character for David, I would agree. WTF is it with him this time, is it just a matter of him finally losing patience with us simply not buying into all his carefully worked out ideas?

 

I don't know.  Considering it was so sudden, and started with the first messages of the day I'm willing to cut him some slack and see what happens, just like when the Captain turns from a friendly Pineapple to a a rude obnoxious sex fiend.

 

I suspect that he got into Pineapple's special "miss Hyde" formula.   

You know, on the rare occasions that I drink enough to get tipsy, I'm just funny and relaxed, then I get sleepy.

Oddly enough, when sober I'm funny and relaxed and often sleepy.

 

Are people who turn into pricks after booze just, well, pricks?  I don't associate with enough regular drinkers to know.

I have to agree with you on this part about how people are drunk/sober. I know myself, I am friendly with a disposition to fighting if tempers flare, I don't instigate but I always finish. For the most part its just good old fun, we laugh, we talk, we do pranks but that's it. I have friends that I don't go drinking with because they seem somewhat selfish, or are prickish, and when they drink it gets so much more amplified.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:  I have

latincanuck wrote:

  I have to agree with you on this part about how people are drunk/sober. I know myself, I am friendly with a disposition to fighting if tempers flare, I don't instigate but I always finish. For the most part its just good old fun, we laugh, we talk, we do pranks but that's it. I have friends that I don't go drinking with because they seem somewhat selfish, or are prickish, and when they drink it gets so much more amplified.

I agree as well.

The experiences that I have had with the Dr. Jekyll /Mr. Hyde people who drink for the most part is the same as what everyone else has stated.

There have been people that I have encountered that just did not have the guts to act aggressively while sober and often use the alcohol as a means of doing so.

I  had one  former friend that would turn into the biggest asshole you would never want to meet when he started drinking. He even admitted to me one time that he always felt like that and the booze seemed to bring it out. After a couple of incidents that got way out of control I quit hanging around him altogether. Hell, even after he sobered up from some pretty messed up instances, he wasn't admittedly sorry for anything. I have no use for that type of nonsense.

My personality does not undergo any radical changes after a few drinks. If anything, I am usually alot more pleasant and laid back.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:Brian37

David Henson wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

I don't buy one bit of this. There are also verses where he demands you abandon your own family if they don't follow him. And "Think not that I bring peace, I bring not peace but a sword".

IRRELEVANT!

There is no such thing as godsperm and it takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby, thus making the virgin birth story complete bunk.

Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, much less 3 days of death, thus making zombie god claims absurd.

BUT, if you want to claim that Jesus was peaceful, it still doesn't change the tyrannical prick of a character in the OT and in Revelations.

Here is the plot of the bible in 3 parts,

1. Be a good Hebrew and no one gets hurt.

2. Thats not working, I'll sacrifice myself to myself so I can save you from me beating the shit out of you for eternity.

3. I'll just go back to being a violent vindictive prick and keep up with my scorched earth policy, "If you wont kiss my ass I will torture you forever".

The bible is an immoral book based on the "might makes right" feudal tribalism of the kingdoms whom thought that their power was from above.

Not to mention there is absolutely NO evidence of thoughts being from an origin outside a material process, much less a magical invisible super  brain with super powers.

Quote:
There would be those who rejected it and those who accepted it, and this would naturally result in division.

NO, what causes division are humans, not Jesus, not Allah, not Thor. There are people who refuse to test their claims and use their utopia as politics to project their desires on other humans.

 

 

Oh, how am I going to answer this?

 

It is just an emotional reaction. Brian. It is just a show.

 

An Okay show for the cathedral. I don't care for the shit.

Of course it is an emotional reaction, just like if you were walking down the street shouting "I'M NAPOLEON" and truly believed you were.

What emotions should I have towards myth falsely believed to be fact? Should I say "Who cares if the science class teaches that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese".

What emotional reaction do you have when Muslims claim that women should wear tents?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37