A Water-Tight Person?

skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
A Water-Tight Person?

Hey Everybody!

So as that little tag on my name tells you, I am a theist (not sure how it got there, but thanks!)

Anyway, I wanted to ask, atheists specifically, a question concerning the idea of a "water-tight" argument for the existence of God. A point was made to me today by a dear friend when he said, "God did not give us a water-tight case for His existence, He gave us Jesus Christ, who is the water-tight case for the existence of God. Think about it, no one has ever been able to say, 'Jesus should have said ____." Neither has anyone been able to look at any of Jesus Christ's actions and say, "He shouldn't have done that."

But this brought up an interesting question (in my heart, at least), namely - is there anything that you, as an atheist,  see when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

  I suppose when people start responding I'll follow up with my other questions, so thanks in advance!

 

Sincerely,

- skeptnick


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You theists make it so

You theists make it so easy....

First of all there is absolutely no proof Jesus ever existed. Here's a big critique of the Jesus Charachter being good:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

Why did he condemn trivial things and not slavery, racism, sexism, etc?

Seriously this was too easy. The actual RRS members would rip you a new one.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mindspread
mindspread's picture
Posts: 360
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Anyway, I

skeptnick wrote:
Anyway, I wanted to ask, atheists specifically, a question concerning the idea of a "water-tight" argument for the existence of God. A point was made to me today by a dear friend when he said, "God did not give us a water-tight case for His existence, He gave us Jesus Christ, who is the water-tight case for the existence of God.

There isn't a "water-tight" argument for Jesus's existence.

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I'll entertain the

I'll entertain the hypothetical.

Quote:
But this brought up an interesting question (in my heart, at least), namely - is there anything that you, as an atheist,  see when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

Yes. Matthew chapter 5. The beattitudes

Rather than espousing the ideals and rewarding them with 'blessings' why didn't he explicitly say, 

1. Don't be sad

2. Don't mourn.

3. Be obsequious

4. Aim to be good.

5. Be merciful.

6. Aim to be good.

7. Don't make war. Make peace.

8. Being good is tough, but is rewarded.

Instead of stopping there, it goes on to say some of the most officious advice ever rendered.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the track of all of the storytellers that created this jesus character. 

The chapter culminates into the final verse:

Matt. 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.

Laughable. What idiot, allegedly divinely gifted with the knowledge of mankind's potential, could say this with a straight face and NOT expect to get crucified? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Think

skeptnick wrote:
Think about it, no one has ever been able to say, 'Jesus should have said ____."

"...don't keep human beings as farm equipment." 

Quote:
Neither has anyone been able to look at any of Jesus Christ's actions and say, "He shouldn't have done that."

Withering a fig tree for not having figs out of season, sending his parents away and saying his disciples were his family, telling a man that he shouldn't even take the time to bury his father, assaulting moneychangers, saddling Judas with the guilt of betrayal instead of turning himself in...

 

Quote:
when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

He shouldn't have said "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

He should have said "I'm going to be gone for a couple millennia, try not to burn too many people at the stake while I'm out, 'kay?" 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   .... which jesus are

   .... which jesus are you refering to ?

the one who didn't write anything ?

the one of little physical description ?

the one the story tellers wrote about ?

the one the historians of that time don't mention ?

the one people still fantasize about ? 

My jesus or your jesus ? I like mine ! He's was atheist , of course,  like the non-historical  buddha ..... 

the thing is , I am jesus/buddha ! Tongue out

  

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure what

I'm not sure what the qualifier is meant to add.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Jesus and Moses were

Jesus and Moses were sitting in a boat.

Jesus says, "Y'know. That trick where you parted the Red sea. That was pretty cool sounding. I didn't get to see it because I wasn't born yet. Do you think you could do that for me in this lake?"

Moses says, "Nope. I passed on my staff and lost all my powers. Sorry. Besides that trick where you walked on water; now that had to be cool. Could you do that for me here?"

"Sure.", says jesus. He puts one foot on the water. Then he puts the other foot on the water. He pushes off from the boat and SINKS like a rock!

Moses jumps over to the edge and grabs jesus' hand. "What happened?"

Jesus gets back into the boat, shrugs his shoulders and says, "Last time I tried that I didn't have these holes in my feet." 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I have to respond to these

I have to respond to these in stride, hope you don't mind, cause it can get a bit complicated trying to respond to everyone in the same post, so here I'll just talk about the first guy who responded, MattShizzle:

The idea that Jesus never existed, and that there is no evidence to that effect, is actually quite a riveting  statement. I'm not really sure how to respond to this, because no other figure in human history has been more researched than Jesus, and the idea that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure is not a position held by virtually any of the leading scholars on the subject. For specific information on this subject, as well as the idea that Jesus was just one of a multitude of mythological figures that were God incarnate and born of a virgin, I'll refer you to Lee Strobel's, "The Case for the Real Jesus". And, of course, as a side note, I know that simply calling it the case for the "Real Jesus" does not make it so - but read its reasoning if you're interested on the subject and consider what it says.

I can relate to your next statement, I've asked that question a lot. But then I started to think, maybe I was asking that question and beginning with an underlying assumption that I shouldn't, namely - is what I consider trivial really trivial? Or rather, do I have the ability to determine what is and is not trivial and needs correction? If I am a sort of "sick patient" that sin has corrupted (sin would have to be real, as a requisite for this analogy, of course), wouldn't I expect to hear things from the doctor that sounded confusing, or even unimportant, because of my lack of understanding the problem and, therefore, the proper method of correcting it?

I can only agree with the first part of this statement, indeed, Christ did condemn trivial things (or so they seem to us), because Christ saw what we did not. That it is not just the larger battles that need to be won, but all the smaller ones as well.  Why? Because if sin is real, then nothing is trivial, and everything is relevant. If, as Christ said, there is, in fact, a God, and more over, a God who's perfect, then if we are to someday come into contact with Him, then we too must be perfect. Consider a single lamp switched on in the middle of a pitch black room. Darkness can exist around the light of of the lamp but never in it. The only way darkness can exist and come into contact with the light is for the darkness to become light itself. Now, of course, all metaphors fall short in some way, because there are layers of grey around the lamp that transition from the darkness to the light, and this is not what Christ said would eventually be the truth of our relationship to God. As far as He is concerned, if you are going to be made perfect - you are going to be made completely perfect, there is no grey area. Perfection permeates and saturates everything, including those things we perceive to be trivial.

In regards to not condemning slavery, racism, sexism, etc; the answer is actually a lot simpler. Christ absolutely and definitively did condemn these things, and many more, when he said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This is why the logic of Christ has done more for the abolision of slavery in the past two thousand years than any other missional force on the planet. It was the logic of, "I am a human being, and as such, I am made in the image of God, and so are you, therefore you have no claim over me, and I have no claim over you," that was the soul and heart of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Movement.

As far as the actual RRS members, I'm afraid I have a much higher appreciation for them. I've already posted on here once, timidly, of course, but I was pleasantly surprised when I found them taking the time to answer me seriously (most of them, anyway) and voice their objections in a calm, assertive manner. I haven't felt, "ripped a new one" by anyone so far, and I think the implications of the words you've chosen unfairly characterize these actual RRS members as simply aiming to shatter, in an aggresive and mean-spirited manner, the reasoning behind a belief in God, for no better reason than their own satisfaction. One of the aims of this site, and indeed the inspiration for its name, is to rationally respond to theists like myself, and this has been best accomplished when responding with a sympathy to our frame of mind, which many atheists have undertaken the task of doing. I think perhaps your message would have a better chance of being accepted, and a theists heart converted, if you adopted the chosen method of some of your allies on these forums. It's actually quite a Christ-like frame of mind.

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote:

JeremiahSmith wrote:

assaulting moneychangers,

? ? ?  Why not ? ? ? I always thougt of this as one of the single most meaningful actions attributed to Jesus, being that it was a bold and memorable statement against institutional fascism.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Lee Strobel is an utter

Lee Strobel is an utter moron. Many of us did read his shit, and found it of no validity. "Love thy neighbor" doesn't work because "neighbor" only referred to other jews. Besides, why would he have said things SUPPORTING slavery, sexism, etc?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: In regards

skeptnick wrote:
In regards to not condemning slavery, racism, sexism, etc; the answer is actually a lot simpler. Christ absolutely and definitively did condemn these things, and many more, when he said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

See, the funny thing about this is is that people didn't actually consider their slaves as their neighbors! It's an example of in-group morality. It only applies to dealings within the group. You would think that Christ could have made things a little more explicit by saying that every human being was your neighbor, but that didn't actually happen, did it?

Eloise wrote:
? ? ? Why not ? ? ? I always thougt of this as one of the single most meaningful actions attributed to Jesus, being that it was a bold and memorable statement against institutional fascism.

For a guy supposedly so enamored of peace, he sure liked making that statement with his fists and not his mouth. 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
The thing that worries me

The thing that worries me about statements like, "Lee Strobel is an utter moron," and the ones who make these statements is that they offer no reasoning as to why I should believe that Lee Strobel is an utter moron. You offered me a sneer, not a a thought-out, rational statement. Is he an utter moron because he doesn't think like you think? What, exactly, is the criteria you're using to determine whether someone has something meaningful to say? Furthermore, I offered you, when I brought up his name and the name of his book, to retort the opinions expressed in that book - and you didn't. You've merely asserted that you've read his works - which ones? And what arguments of his don't you agree with? Why?

Look, I'm not trying to come down on you, it's just, I think there's a misunderstanding in your response that illustrates a common flaw in atheists arguments, namely - that theists are the only ones who have anything to answer for. You can disagree with anyone you like, but would you mind doing it based on reasoning instead of sneers? Anyone at any time could come on these boards and call "MattShizzle" an utter moron, and claim to have read many of his posts - it wouldn't make that blanket assertion true.

In regards to "Love thy neighbor" referring only to other Jews, this is a statement that is made no where in the Bible. If you read it, you will find that God calls people to understand that salvation is for everyone. "First to the Jew, but also to the Greek." This is why Christ calls his disciples to "...go and make disciples of all nations..." in the Great Commission at the end of Matthew. I'm sorry, it only takes a simple reading of the text to see such a simple point. But you must approach the text without a predisposition to disagreeing with whatever you read before you read it.

So what do you think? Also, what things are you referring to when you say Christ said things supporting slavery, sexism, etc?

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:


Quote:

Look, I'm not trying to come down on you, it's just, I think there's a misunderstanding in your response that illustrates a common flaw in atheists arguments, namely - that theists are the only ones who have anything to answer for.

Well, generally speaking that's true.

I don't have much else to contribute here, since I haven't read much yet on the historicity of the bible, but the above quote seems to approach a common accusation we often have to respond to on this forum.

The theists are making the positive claim. X is true, they say. So the burden of proof is on the theist to tell us (the atheists) why we should believe that X is true.

It's pretty simple really. If a friend approached you and made any claim---let's say they claimed they just won a million dollars---you would require a little backup. You don't believe things first and then hear them later. Furthermore, you don't believe things just because you hear them.

Some evidence or irrefutable reasoning is required. It's not up to you to prove to your friend that he didn't just win a million dollars. You're not making the claim. It would also be silly for him to expect this of you since proving a negative is impossible. He's making the positive claim, so it's up to him to prove that he did.

So generally speaking, at least as far as the question of god's existence, the atheists have nothing to answer for. We just tell the theists why we remain utterly unconvinced. If they can't convince us, that's not our problem. We're not trying to antagonize; we just sincerely do not buy it and think it's silly than someone else would.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Read the link I first

Read the link I first posted in this thread - it shows the Jesus Character was a total asshole. You might also want to go to the "Jesus Mythicism" Forum - there is literally NO valid evidence he ever existed. He was based on earlier myths:

http://www.atheistfellowship.com/aa3/03.html

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote:Hey

skeptnick wrote:

Hey Everybody!

So as that little tag on my name tells you, I am a theist (not sure how it got there, but thanks!)

Anyway, I wanted to ask, atheists specifically, a question concerning the idea of a "water-tight" argument for the existence of God. A point was made to me today by a dear friend when he said, "God did not give us a water-tight case for His existence, He gave us Jesus Christ, who is the water-tight case for the existence of God. Think about it, no one has ever been able to say, 'Jesus should have said ____." Neither has anyone been able to look at any of Jesus Christ's actions and say, "He shouldn't have done that."

But this brought up an interesting question (in my heart, at least), namely - is there anything that you, as an atheist, see when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

I suppose when people start responding I'll follow up with my other questions, so thanks in advance!

 

Sincerely,

- skeptnick

I haven't attempted this but I would imagine I could easily select a figure from history and write an account of their life that, while completely factual (saying the account of Jesus actions and statements is completely factual for the sake of argument), would make them seem as if they had never said anything I, or whomever my intended audience was, would disagree with. It becomes even easier when I select statements that are so general in scope, say "love thy neighbor", that each person can interpret it to mean what they desire it to mean.

Further, I, personally, don't know the Biblical account of Jesus's life well enough to point to specific things he did or said I would disagree with. Nor do I know the Koran well enough to do such a thing with Allah. Nor do I know any particular biography of Winston Chruchill or Ghandi or Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandella to do such a thing. But, I imagine it would certainly be possible that I don't necessarilly disagree with anything Jesus is reported to have said or done just as I imagine there are accounts of other people's lives that would meet the criteria of my not being able to find fault with anything they said or did.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
  skeptnick wrote: The

 

skeptnick wrote:
The thing that worries me about statements like, "Lee Strobel is an utter moron," and the ones who make these statements is that they offer no reasoning as to why I should believe that Lee Strobel is an utter moron.

Why are you speaking in the abstract?

skeptnick wrote:
You offered me a sneer, not a a thought-out, rational statement. Is he an utter moron because he doesn't think like you think? What, exactly, is the criteria you're using to determine whether someone has something meaningful to say? Furthermore, I offered you, when I brought up his name and the name of his book, to retort the opinions expressed in that book - and you didn't. You've merely asserted that you've read his works - which ones? And what arguments of his don't you agree with? Why?

He's been covered in depth already by ExtantDodo on YouTube and caseagainstfaith.com. There's no single complaint to point to, but if you bring up one of his arguments, we can respond to it.

skeptnick wrote:
Look, I'm not trying to come down on you, it's just, I think there's a misunderstanding in your response that illustrates a common flaw in atheists arguments, namely - that theists are the only ones who have anything to answer for.

The burden of proof is on you, not the one not claiming something unsubstantiated. Stop trying to poison the well by suggesting everything is indicative of some fatal flaw in "atheist arguments."

skeptnick wrote:
You can disagree with anyone you like, but would you mind doing it based on reasoning instead of sneers? Anyone at any time could come on these boards and call "MattShizzle" an utter moron, and claim to have read many of his posts - it wouldn't make that blanket assertion true.

Brevity is your friend.

skeptnick wrote:
In regards to "Love thy neighbor" referring only to other Jews, this is a statement that is made no where in the Bible. If you read it, you will find that God calls people to understand that salvation is for everyone. "First to the Jew, but also to the Greek." This is why Christ calls his disciples to "...go and make disciples of all nations..." in the Great Commission at the end of Matthew. I'm sorry, it only takes a simple reading of the text to see such a simple point. But you must approach the text without a predisposition to disagreeing with whatever you read before you read it.

So what do you think? Also, what things are you referring to when you say Christ said things supporting slavery, sexism, etc?

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote:Hey

skeptnick wrote:

Hey Everybody!

So as that little tag on my name tells you, I am a theist (not sure how it got there, but thanks!)

Anyway, I wanted to ask, atheists specifically, a question concerning the idea of a "water-tight" argument for the existence of God. A point was made to me today by a dear friend when he said, "God did not give us a water-tight case for His existence, He gave us Jesus Christ, who is the water-tight case for the existence of God. Think about it, no one has ever been able to say, 'Jesus should have said ____." Neither has anyone been able to look at any of Jesus Christ's actions and say, "He shouldn't have done that."

But this brought up an interesting question (in my heart, at least), namely - is there anything that you, as an atheist, see when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

I suppose when people start responding I'll follow up with my other questions, so thanks in advance!

 

Sincerely,

- skeptnick

Me again. I also wonder what your criteria for deciding whether or not Jesus said what he should have, or not, is. Say a person enters this thread and says Jesus should not have said or done X, as has happened. What will you then say as you will be forced to defend what Jesus said or did against someone who disagrees with it and all that will accomplish is demonstarting that you agree with everything Jesus said and did which has already been stated (or implied). If you are going to attempt to argue that what Jesus said or did is necessarilly objectively right, you will likely be basing that in a Biblical definition of right, and therefor will simply be asserting your conclusion.

The problem is that agreeing with Jesus or not is subjective and therefor no matter how many people may agree with what he says, it doesn't prove that anyone else will agree with what he says, or that what he says is right. It seems to me that this is going to end in one person saying they don't agree with Jesus, you saying they should whether they do or not, and there you will be at an impasse.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Jesus encouraged the

Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.

 

Jesus loves castration-amputation

 

If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).

"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves. Even metaphorically, this advice is in poor taste.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


skeptnick
Theist
Posts: 36
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
hey, how do I do that thing

hey, how do I do that thing where you take a snippet of someone's post and put it above your response to that snippet? I'd like to know that before I go threw some of these - thanks!

Sincerely,

- skeptnick 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
HOW TO USE THE QUOTE

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   ..... this thread is

   ..... this thread is stretched way wide ? 

( I'm in IE , can't do firefox now , my pc is too lame ..... )

whatever .....

[ edit , i just replied and now it's fixed ???? ummm


RickRebel
RickRebel's picture
Posts: 327
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
skeptnic wrote:

skeptnic wrote:
But this brought up an interesting question (in my heart, at least), namely - is there anything that you, as an atheist, see when you read the things Christ said, and say to yourself, "Christ shouldn't have said that, he should have said ___".

 

Yes. Christ should not have said:


"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. - Luke 14:26 ( New American Standard )

 

First of all, by telling us to hate our parents, Jesus is telling us to break one of the 10 commandments that says, "Honor thy father and thy mother."

Not too bright. The religious right would have been furious.

And as far as what Jesus should have said; ANYTHING in the past 2000 years. But has he? Nope. Nothing. Not one word. And that's because Jesus he's only real in the imagination of millions of very delusional people.

 

 

 

 

Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1234
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
jesus shouldn't have let a

jesus shouldn't have let a groupie give him an expensive lube job, when the money could have been put to more productive use (not necessarily as a charitable contribution, but perhaps as funding for leprosy research, or a women's advocacy group).

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   RickRebel, defending

   RickRebel, defending that Jesus , as written as making some sense is getting old for me.

The word 'hate' I would bet is a poor word of choice in the translation.

Maybe Rook knows. They couldn't have been that fucking lame ..... 

Seems the verse focuses on the family of oneness against our prejudiced limited relationships ?

 I never met Jesus , but shit the Jews surly weren't just completely insane ?  sheezzzz .... Undecided

 


RickRebel
RickRebel's picture
Posts: 327
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
I AM ONE AS GOD

I AM ONE AS GOD wrote:
RickRebel defending that Jesus , as written as making some sense is getting old for me.

The word 'hate' I would bet is a poor word of choice in the translation.

Defending scripture by saying that it must have been a poor translation simply doesn't work. If God inspired the original words, then where the hell was he when it was being translated? I'd hate to think that millions of lost souls will end up in hell because the big boss was asleep on the job.

 

 

Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    RickRebel , yep

    RickRebel , yep

that god doesn't exist !

We are on our own

, but hey the smart jews were definately misunderstood , I give them due credit ....  

those ancestors were not all just complete fools,

were they ?

Yeah, the bible sucks, but why ?


RickRebel
RickRebel's picture
Posts: 327
Joined: 2007-01-16
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
those ancestors were not all just complete fools,

were they ?

Yeah, the bible sucks, but why ?

 

Fools? No. Unless we can also say that cavemen were fools for not having cars.

Two thousand years ago people had a lot of questions about their existence here on earth. So they made up some really weird shit to try to explain it. They didn't have the science that we have today to show them that there are more logical answers to their questions. That's why, as you say, the Bible sucks.

If you asked me if the people today who still believe that the earth was created in six day are fools, I'd say yes.

 

 

Frosty's coming back someday. Will you be ready?


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Yeah, the bible sucks, but why ?

1.) Inability to adapt to changing times. Science discovers new processes with which to aid humanity. However, since there is no mention of them being a gift from 'god' in the bible then the theist has few courses of action with regard to the implementation of new processes. Had the bible said something to the effect of: "god will gradually make life better through science." then it would be much easier to 'fit' it into daily life without rationalized displacement on the part of the judeo-theist.

2.) Discriminatory teachings. Hands down, the bible is the most useful tool for prejudice ever created. Misogyny, racism, class division, and ethnic disparity are all staples of the adherents to the various denominations. Openly or covertly, the bible teachers imbue each generation of theists with a 'brand' of theism based upon their own interpretations rather than any time-honored doctrine. Each year, the catholic church alters one facet of its understanding while 'force-fitting' it into the catechism.

3.) Contradictory advice for the people told to use the bible in their daily lives. The honor your parents/hate your parents issue mentioned earlier in the thread is one prime example. Even if you loosely translate 'hate' into 'love less' it still flies in the face of reason. Another fine example of how the bible teaches hypocrisy is the 'judge/do not judge mantra. Very little guidance in judging correctly is given. As far as prayer giving an individual insight into the 'heart' of another person, I had no luck with this when I was one of the 'flock'.

4.) Scriptures left out by church 'fathers' based upon their own distaste for said redacted manuscripts. Job was included, but Enoch was not? How very quaint. Maccabeans omitted, but two similar stories for David? Include the whole story if it is supposed to be the 'word of god' through the interpretation of humanity.

5.) bastardized pieces of the bible. One imperfect alteration lends credence to the fact that the entire thing is a hoax. The 'devil is in the details' Mark 16:9-20 added as what? and when?

6.) Duplication. Do any previously 'known' women give birth to kings? For fuck's sake, does it really matter whether or not the little bitch was a virgin?

7.) Violation of scientific facts. World is round. The ludicrous 'firmament' idea. Light before stars. Dragons climbing out of the sea focusing on one pregnant woman to kill. Resurrection. Honestly, the list goes on and on. Instead of 'excusing the ignorance of the previous generations', biblical apologists try to semantically rearrange the words so as to make the bronze age men seem more intelligent than historically provable. I understand that they do so because every scientific discovery for the last 5 centuries has made their 'god' smaller. The theism has programmed them to do so. It isn't their fault that the belief structure has been made inflexible. People are pliable and so they 'bend' around the beliefs. However, those beliefs are still there encumbering their lives and mental states.

8.) Last one. No allowances made for the unbelievers. According to the religious, I and my fellow blasphemers have no chance of attaining a reward granted for the good people simply because I lack the capacity for this 'faith' thing. News flash. I don't need one. I am good and charitable and hard-working and nice (when necessary). Yet I am not welcome to your praise because I want to feel good about myself. The most obnoxious thing said to me while helping someone is: "Thank god you stopped to help." My response has always been to inform them that "'god' did not tell me to stop to help, but I am still here. What is wrong?" I know that the religion has programmed them to think that their god deserves all the praise for a good thing happening by the magnanimous endeavors of another human. I pity them that some will never understand that saying that takes a piece of the 'good' Josh and metaphorically slams him against the wall and it takes time for him to heal before able to help again.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
skeptnick wrote: Neither

skeptnick wrote:

Neither has anyone been able to look at any of Jesus Christ's actions and say, "He shouldn't have done that."

 

... NOT getting nailed to a cross...

ya, thats it, NOT getting killed.

One would think the immortal son of God would have been able to do SO much more in his time on Earth >.>

 

"But he died for our sins!"

*SLAP*

No... he died because he was a pussy deity, and my sinning has nothing to do with a dead guy... unless its teabagging a noob

What Would Kharn Do?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh , I so agree

darth_josh , I so agree ....

My comments are so often misunderstood. ( dumb me )

Reading the Bible has never had much affect on me personally. No more than reading earlier mythology. I adore our many old gods. Hey so clever we are.

As we all know, the Bible was written and re-written over a very long period by many persons and has no absolute consistent message.

The whole problem is in the enforcement by the powerful controllers with their interpretations and the fools who follow them.

There isn't a story or verse in that Bible that can't be interpreted many ways. That is largely why it has endured.

To throw the Bible away, which I have actually done in anger, is not the answer. That book isn't going away soon, tho it will eventually.

Yeah Devil shit is the church, so I say we atheists must re-explain the Bible to the masses for what it really is. It's much more than just stupid.

For the cause of debunking religion in our "current time", I say the hero Jesus character was an early atheist idea, and the NT proves it. It's the best I can do to get the religious listening and thinking ........

Rook and many others are working on it too.

The great Tom Jefferson was so into this problem he created his own Bible edit ......

I'm not much worried about you fellow atheists, But must remind you that there is more than one way to skin a religious cat .....

Sharpen your Swords ! .... and slay them before me, the dragons of religion ( exorcise ) ..... Yeah Jesus ! ? !   Laughing


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Almost a proposition for a

Almost a proposition for a race to the finish line of extirpation vs. re-interpretation.

Hmmm. I'll kill the belief and you can resurrect it into a zombie serving your ends. We shall see who overtakes the ethical 'high-ground' in the end, my weathered little wordsmith. lol. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.