I Do Belive, I do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I Do Belive, I do Believe ( Wizard of Oz)

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

BUT these myths and narratives are the way that god truly reveals himself in time. They are the revelation of truth in narrative. The virgin birth was not historical but it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story. Die Sache Jesu geht Weider... The cause of Jesus lives on. (Willi Marxen ) Jesus rose into his on kerygma (gospel or preaching) Rudolf Bultmann, the resurrection occurred as revelation at communion after Jesus's death as disciples began to understand the meaning of the bread and wine Rudolf Schnackenburg (Catholic).

These examples show why it is important to end the dysfunctional systems of these types of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. There is nothing sophisticated about such theologies. They actually reflect a desperation to cling to the security of a past life of delusional answers concerning questions about living rather than to face the responsibility of finding the real answers in living itself. The problem we face, however, is as my examples demonstrates, the intent to believe regardless of the facts.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Looks like Zeus to the deconverted (Heard of it)?

 Jesus and Zeus, the nature of that connection or what reminds of Zeus. 

Quote:
it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story

     I m not sure if you've noticed a few sites  (too bad only a few sites) catering to the deconverted?  I m not sure why but there is some evidence for a bit odd conceptualization. With not a dime's worth of difference between Jesus and Zeus. A lot of the deconverted  are of a conviction that Jesus is the same as Zeus, mentioned specifically from direct quotes of the deconverted in their own words. Curious, Are there any bible passages that COME TO MIND connect(ed-ing) Jesus with a Zeus like figure?  I can only reference our current collection of books that became the cannon.  It made me  immediately think of some scripture passages that jump to mind.    ..  .. ..  In fact, Somehow I was never able to directly contact them individually. I would appreciate your response to this find. So, Signifies some deep parallel ? Could you point out any scriptual passages that would support this or no? 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Jesus

danatemporary wrote:

 Jesus and Zeus, the nature of that connection or what reminds of Zeus. 

Quote:
it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story

     I m not sure if you've noticed a few sites  (too bad only a few sites) catering to the deconverted?  I m not sure why but there is some evidence for a bit odd conceptualization. With not a dime's worth of difference between Jesus and Zeus. A lot of the deconverted  are of a conviction that Jesus is the same as Zeus, mentioned specifically from direct quotes of the deconverted in their own words. Curious, Are there any bible passages that COME TO MIND connect(ed-ing) Jesus with a Zeus like figure?  I can only reference our current collection of books that became the cannon.  It made me  immediately think of some scripture passages that jump to mind.    ..  .. ..  In fact, Somehow I was never able to directly contact them individually. I would appreciate your response to this find. So, Signifies some deep parallel ? Could you point out any scriptual passages that would support this or no? 

The second century non-biblical Christianity began viewing jesus as a demi-god more like hercules.  I guess his ddaddy would be something like Zeus.  Jesus seems to have been a human being who had a twist on contemporary judaism and died teaching the stuff. By the end of the first century Gentile followers who had a Greek religious background started seeing him as divine. He was thought to be the son of god. Then he was thought to be a god. And by the end of the third century he was thought to be one of three persons in a Godhead.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Always a Pleasure

danatemporary wrote:

 Jesus and Zeus, the nature of that connection or what reminds of Zeus. 

Quote:
it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story

     I m not sure if you've noticed a few sites  (too bad only a few sites) catering to the deconverted?  I m not sure why but there is some evidence for a bit odd conceptualization. With not a dime's worth of difference between Jesus and Zeus. A lot of the deconverted  are of a conviction that Jesus is the same as Zeus, mentioned specifically from direct quotes of the deconverted in their own words. Curious, Are there any bible passages that COME TO MIND connect(ed-ing) Jesus with a Zeus like figure?  I can only reference our current collection of books that became the cannon.  It made me  immediately think of some scripture passages that jump to mind.    ..  .. ..  In fact, Somehow I was never able to directly contact them individually. I would appreciate your response to this find. So, Signifies some deep parallel ? Could you point out any scriptural passages that would support this or no? 

Greetings Dana Temporary. It is always a pleasure to read your thoughts on various subjects. 

There are some who believe that the similarities in the names Jesus and Zeus are indicative that they were indeed one and the same. When one goes back and looks at the spelling in the original language it becomes apparent that there is no logic to that one. It would be kinda like saying that Greg is the same guy as Craig. Or Benny is the same as Lenny.

The name Jesus was a common Jewish name and had no connection whatsoever to Zeus.

As Baker pointed out, one could draw some parallels if they want to bad enough. But that's about as far as this one goes. Some say that Paul was making reference to Zeus when giving his speech to the Greek's. But that is also without any merit since he stated plainly that he was referring to their statue of an unknown god.

I think the closest you come on this is the fact that some of the heathen god's were thought to have "father and son" relationships with each other. I really don't see any other significant parallels.

Gramps

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gramster, I do wish you'd

Gramster, I do wish you'd stop half interpreting scripture.

The rest of Acts 4:23 says "So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you." Paul was saying "Since you don't know what you worship it must be the God that I created".

Kind of similar to your views on Daniel.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Gramster, I

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I do wish you'd stop half interpreting scripture.

The rest of Acts 4:23 says "So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you." Paul was saying "Since you don't know what you worship it must be the God that I created".

Kind of similar to your views on Daniel.

Greetings Gadfly. I really wasn't "interpreting scripture" at all. I was simply making a brief reference to it. Maybe I should have looked up and posted a quote with text. My apologies.

Yes, he was saying "since you don't know what it is that you worship, it must be the God of the bible". We will continue to differ on the "Paul conspiracy thing".

The point being made, it was not a reference to Zeus. That was the question being discussed. I don't really see the relevance of your comment to the point of discussion??


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:jcgadfly

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I do wish you'd stop half interpreting scripture.

The rest of Acts 4:23 says "So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you." Paul was saying "Since you don't know what you worship it must be the God that I created".

Kind of similar to your views on Daniel.

Greetings Gadfly. I really wasn't "interpreting scripture" at all. I was simply making a brief reference to it. Maybe I should have looked up and posted a quote with text. My apologies.

Yes, he was saying "since you don't know what it is that you worship, it must be the God of the bible". We will continue to differ on the "Paul conspiracy thing".

The point being made, it was not a reference to Zeus. That was the question being discussed. I don't really see the relevance of your comment to the point of discussion??

Dana wasn't making a connection of Jesus to Zeus. She was making a remark on how similar she thought the mythological characters are. The only one who made the connection to Zeus was you. Way to knock down that straw man. The Ephesians were well aware of Zeus so I doubt if your "Some say..." actually leads to a person.

There is no Paul conspiracy. He created a religion that happened to stick and was able to gain Roman support, that's all.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: Demonstration unequivocally stupid people roam the internet

 Thanks Gramps for being kind enough to comment.  Thanks. I think that wasnt what I am curious about in my question. 

Quote:
"..some believe that the similarities in the names Jesus and Zeus are indicative that they were indeed one and the same. When one goes back and looks at the spelling in the original language it becomes apparent that there is no logic to that one. It would be kinda like saying that Greg is the same guy as Craig. Or Benny is the same as Lenny ..The name Jesus was a common Jewish name 'and has no connection whatsoever to Zeus'"
  My Reply to that, -- Another one does not even make so little time as to soon know the books in the Canon were not originally written in english?  Ha!   How dunderheaded.  Neandertals must walk among us. They are on the Net. What were they in elementary school ? I'll bet I can find this on the Internet, Right?       I am too tenderhearted to bear this, it burns. It burns!  Factoid -- In the Greek original to the Sanskrit is actually the word Dyaus (or dyeu)   where we get our word 'Deity'

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Zeus

danatemporary wrote:

 Thanks Gramps for being kind enough to comment.  Thanks. I think that wasnt what I am curious about in my question. 

Quote:
"..some believe that the similarities in the names Jesus and Zeus are indicative that they were indeed one and the same. When one goes back and looks at the spelling in the original language it becomes apparent that there is no logic to that one. It would be kinda like saying that Greg is the same guy as Craig. Or Benny is the same as Lenny ..The name Jesus was a common Jewish name 'and has no connection whatsoever to Zeus'"
  My Reply to that, -- Another one does not even make so little time as to soon know the books in the Canon were not originally written in english?  Ha!   How dunderheaded.  Neandertals must walk among us. They are on the Net. What were they in elementary school ? I'll bet I can find this on the Internet, Right?       I am too tenderhearted to bear this, it burns. It burns!  Factoid -- In the Greek original to the Sanskrit is actually the word Dyaus (or dyeu)   where we get our word 'Deity'

 

Actually, the first part of my answer was not a direct response to your question. While browsing online to see what people were saying about this "connection" I ran into this "Neandertal" notion about the names. I was just making a preemptive answer to an irrational notion before some "wart" (excuse me I mean dear misguided soul) came along and made this assertion.

The second part of my answer was in response to your question. Baker pointed out that there was a father and son relationship with Zeus. If I read that post properly that is about as far as Baker seems to think that goes. I hope I am not misinterpreting Baker's post.

I, likewise can not seem to make much of a connection here.

I hope this better answers your question.

Gramps


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, New rule nobody is allowed to do that ever again.

 

gramster wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Thanks Gramps for being kind enough to comment.  Thanks .. My Reply to that, -- Another one does not even make so little time as to soon know the books in the Canon were not originally written in english?  Ha!   How dunderheaded.  Neandertals must walk among us. They are on the Net. What were they in elementary school ? I'll bet I can find this on the Internet, Right?       I am too tenderhearted to bear this, it burns. It burns!  Factoid -- In the Greek original to the Sanskrit is actually the word Dyaus (or dyeu)   where we get our word 'Deity'

 

I was just making a preemptive answer to an irrational notion before some "wart" (excuse me I mean dear misguided soul) came along and made this assertion.

 ..

  .. I, likewise can not seem to make much of a connection here.

I hope this better answers your question.

Gramps

Gramps.  I  imagine people have done more than pop-up books of Zeus' vs. Christ's crashworthiness. 

 {Please},  Dont feel bad. My first instinct was to go with a sole picture (I will next time)

 See: Above  " ..Ha!   How dunderheaded .."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, How about minus the Xian "trio" ? Then ?

 See: Image

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay, How about minus the Xian "trio" ? Then ?

  See: Image

 

 

 See: Image


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 

gramster wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

 Thanks Gramps for being kind enough to comment.  Thanks .. My Reply to that, -- Another one does not even make so little time as to soon know the books in the Canon were not originally written in english?  Ha!   How dunderheaded.  Neandertals must walk among us. They are on the Net. What were they in elementary school ? I'll bet I can find this on the Internet, Right?       I am too tenderhearted to bear this, it burns. It burns!  Factoid -- In the Greek original to the Sanskrit is actually the word Dyaus (or dyeu)   where we get our word 'Deity'

 

I was just making a preemptive answer to an irrational notion before some "wart" (excuse me I mean dear misguided soul) came along and made this assertion.

 ..

  .. I, likewise can not seem to make much of a connection here.

I hope this better answers your question.

Gramps

Gramps.  I  imagine people have done more than pop-up books of Zeus' vs. Christ's crashworthiness. 

 {Please},  Dont feel bad. My first instinct was to go with a sole picture (I will next time)

 See: Above  " ..Ha!   How dunderheaded .."

Cute pic's. Above and below.

Not to worry. Not insulted easily. Usually don't take things personally. Just consider the source.

Out there! I guess! Not much for understatements though.


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
What's so bad about Christianity?

TGBaker wrote:

It's sad and dangerous that people continue to fall for myths of Christianity. What is worse is the intentional affirmation and legitimating of these myths as absolute truths that are an imposition upon the activities of humankind. In seminary when I was a theological neophyte there was a worse myth. The neo-orthodoxy of World War I evolved into a theology that would make truth claims that the bible IS a collection of myth and fable as a positive thing.

BUT these myths and narratives are the way that god truly reveals himself in time. They are the revelation of truth in narrative. The virgin birth was not historical but it was more truthful than fact in that it revealed Jesus as both god and man. The resurrection was not historical because the transcendent intersected at that point in history whereby god manifested in the story. In other words the body stayed dead but the spirit of Jesus spread through the world in the mythic story. Die Sache Jesu geht Weider... The cause of Jesus lives on. (Willi Marxen ) Jesus rose into his on kerygma (gospel or preaching) Rudolf Bultmann, the resurrection occurred as revelation at communion after Jesus's death as disciples began to understand the meaning of the bread and wine Rudolf Schnackenburg (Catholic).

These examples show why it is important to end the dysfunctional systems of these types of Christianity, Judaism or Islam. There is nothing sophisticated about such theologies. They actually reflect a desperation to cling to the security of a past life of delusional answers concerning questions about living rather than to face the responsibility of finding the real answers in living itself. The problem we face, however, is as my examples demonstrates, the intent to believe regardless of the facts.

 

With all of the insanity being promoted by such "theologians" you listed above it is no wonder you would come to reject Christianity outright.

What I find interesting is all of the "angst" against Christianity in the first place. Really, what is so bad about our faith?

Let's take a quick look.

We believe in a God who cares for people and has their ultimate best interest in mind.

We believe that we, as God's children are also to care about others and act in their best interest.

We are to refrain from theft, lying, adultery, murder... . We are to honor our parents. Refrain from self destructive behaviors.

We are to minister to (care for) the poor.

Christianity has been responsible for salvaging the lives of countless thousands of criminals, addicts, and those with other major life destroying issues.

Christians spend their own money to build hospitals and schools all around the world. They dig wells to provide fresh water to "ailing communities". And spend millions on providing food, clothing, and other relief to grief stricken peoples.

Sure there are accounts of "evil" persons in positions of power doing horrible things in the "name of" Christianity, as there have also been atheists doing such as well. But these behaviors are not condoned in the Christian faith.

If I were not a believer, I would likely still continue to support the work Christianity does in this country and around the world. The world is a better place because of Christians and Christianity. That is a fact.

I do not understand the dark and sinister minds that focus only on the isolated and negative when there is so much more positive going on??

Just a quick and simple prospective from a Christian's point of view.

Gramps.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: Returning to details . . . .

Where went this inquiry?  I am not about to allow a general lack of knowledge be 'the' end of an inquiry.

 You will know them by their symbols (and/or what its' associated with)  ...    ...  You might not understand where I am going with this. Interesting  Jupiter is a heavenly body and planet and the  largest planet within this Solar System (Zeus reference).  Symbols were placed along side various gods. Side note B-e-l had a "eagle headed club", also placed as pantheonic head, also associated with the planetary body. In mythology Ganymede was the very cupbearer of the gods (sexual aspect excluded). Zeus took a familiar form. The eagle.  It states about a whole other mythical hero, from the region, in Langdon's book: "on the assumption that in some way the ancient hero Etana (later  deified), who is said to have ascended to heaven on the back of an eagle". In establishing the beginnings of let's say "beyond mere coincidence" Especially, in these same gods would all be associated with not only the same planet but also the very same symbol. What about that?

 

**URL is www.archive.org/stream/babylonianepicof00languoft/babylonianepicof00languoft_djvu.txt


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Gramster, I am intrigued by

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In Little to no knowledge , not easy to point out these errors:

 

Quote:
The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible[/Quotes]

The problem is how do we know that ?

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In Little to no knowledge , not easy to point out these errors:

 

Quote:
The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible

The problem is how do we know that ?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 

Quote:
The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible

The problem is how do we know that ?

 

Read the Bible?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Read the Bible . .

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Quote:
JcGadfly wrote: "Read the Bible.."
 

Sorry for any misunderstanding between us.  I just meant  not everyone has followed Gramp's thread  in the last five or so weeks ;  Departure wise. Smiling

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Quote:
JcGadfly wrote: "Read the Bible.."
 

Sorry for any misunderstanding between us.  I just meant  not everyone has followed Gramp's thread  in the last five or so weeks ;  Departure wise. Smiling

 

 

 

Oh...sorry...<sheepish grin>

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
'Falsifiability' worth adding to the realm of possibilities ?

Quote:
jcgadfly wrote: Oh...sorry...<sheepish grin>

 

No es nada. De nada.

***************

 

Gramps -- 'Falsifiability' worth adding to  the realm of possibilities (hint)?

I appreciate Gramps having but a single option , branch off in a couple directions in his comments.

 Strict monotheistic , self-identify(ing), (-ers) with Christianity have a terrible time in exploring anything out from under the Trinitarian God-Man mind set.  Only thing harder could be to stop using the book of Daniel as a meta-framework for all eschatological musings.   Unsure what he's going to offer by way of an explanation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Christianity

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Interesting how two people can look at the exact same thing, and view them so vastly different.

I have noticed that you focus entirely on the negative, often fabricating worse case scenario's in your warped little mind. I cannot imagine having a mind so depraved that one always views things as you do.

The Bible is so full of uplifting and noble thoughts and ideals. And they just "zoom" right by you.

You have my sincerest sympathies.

 


tastybrain
atheist
tastybrain's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2009-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Warped Little Minds

Allow me to jump in to this discussion having just read it in its entirety and finding this last post so very compelling.

 

Gramps, it's true that the bible does contain noble and uplifting thoughts and sentiments. It's not that they zip or "zoom" past us; it's that the glaring inconsistencies scream out at us and remind us of the stark fact that they are patently human and not divine in nature or origin. Your "sympathy" is no sympathy at all, but self-righteousness. Atheism is a negation of belief in God and as such its expression will take on negative terminology when it seeks to refute the nonsense it encounters. Gadfly was trying to point out that you do not account for the inconsistencies in the "love" of Jesus' message in the gospels and the rest of scripture, not to mention the fact that it cannot jive with the Old Testament whatsoever without some serious confirmation bias.

 

 

inconsitencies(更多关于 inconsitencies 的资料.)

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The core doctrine

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Interesting how two people can look at the exact same thing, and view them so vastly different.

I have noticed that you focus entirely on the negative, often fabricating worse case scenario's in your warped little mind. I cannot imagine having a mind so depraved that one always views things as you do.

The Bible is so full of uplifting and noble thoughts and ideals. And they just "zoom" right by you.

You have my sincerest sympathies.

 

 

of the bible is that humans are born with genetically inherited guilt and must be burned for eternity unless they accept a doctrine unsupported by testable explanation. This is the whole point of Calvary, the fulcrum on which your faith swings. 

When I want something uplifting and noble, I'll read Epicetus or Marcus Aurelius. Clearly, you fail to comprehend the moral inconsistency of your contrived god. You have my most condescending sympathies. 

 

 

 

 

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


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
False Doctrine of Hell

Atheistextremist wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Interesting how two people can look at the exact same thing, and view them so vastly different.

I have noticed that you focus entirely on the negative, often fabricating worse case scenario's in your warped little mind. I cannot imagine having a mind so depraved that one always views things as you do.

The Bible is so full of uplifting and noble thoughts and ideals. And they just "zoom" right by you.

You have my sincerest sympathies.

 

 

of the bible is that humans are born with genetically inherited guilt and must be burned for eternity unless they accept a doctrine unsupported by testable explanation. This is the whole point of Calvary, the fulcrum on which your faith swings. 

When I want something uplifting and noble, I'll read Epicetus or Marcus Aurelius. Clearly, you fail to comprehend the moral inconsistency of your contrived god. You have my most condescending sympathies. 

Your point may be valid if the erroneous doctrine of people burning throughout eternity were true. I do not believe that the bible teaches that. A good study on the topic of Hell, Death, and Eternity does not support that.

What I believe is that people will make their choices, and any punishment will "fit the crime".

In the end, those who choose not to accept God and do not wish to live in His kingdom will get their wish. They will not be burning "forever" in some remote "hell", but will simply cease to exist. Many on this site have expressed that this is indeed their wish.

Eternal life is offered to those who want it. Not forced on anyone. My faith does not "swing on a fulcrum of Eternal life vs eternal suffering. It is eternal life vs no existence at all. It is simply a matter of choice.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Eternal life is such a

Eternal life is such a ridiculous notion. You're simply too scared to imagine a world without you, so you latch on to the first idea which suggests it is possible for you to exist forever.
But wishful thinking doesn't make it true. When you die, you'll be treated to the same oblivion everyone else is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
gramster

gramster wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Interesting how two people can look at the exact same thing, and view them so vastly different.

I have noticed that you focus entirely on the negative, often fabricating worse case scenario's in your warped little mind. I cannot imagine having a mind so depraved that one always views things as you do.

The Bible is so full of uplifting and noble thoughts and ideals. And they just "zoom" right by you.

You have my sincerest sympathies.

 

 

of the bible is that humans are born with genetically inherited guilt and must be burned for eternity unless they accept a doctrine unsupported by testable explanation. This is the whole point of Calvary, the fulcrum on which your faith swings. 

When I want something uplifting and noble, I'll read Epicetus or Marcus Aurelius. Clearly, you fail to comprehend the moral inconsistency of your contrived god. You have my most condescending sympathies. 

Your point may be valid if the erroneous doctrine of people burning throughout eternity were true. I do not believe that the bible teaches that. A good study on the topic of Hell, Death, and Eternity does not support that.

What I believe is that people will make their choices, and any punishment will "fit the crime".

In the end, those who choose not to accept God and do not wish to live in His kingdom will get their wish. They will not be burning "forever" in some remote "hell", but will simply cease to exist. Many on this site have expressed that this is indeed their wish.

Eternal life is offered to those who want it. Not forced on anyone. My faith does not "swing on a fulcrum of Eternal life vs eternal suffering. It is eternal life vs no existence at all. It is simply a matter of choice.

Wow, what a non-Biblical position you hold. I thought you knew better. Your belief doesn't change what your book says.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


gramster
Theist
Posts: 501
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:gramster

jcgadfly wrote:

gramster wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

gramster wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Gramster, I am intrigued by this "Christianity" of yours. The version you describe has nothing to do with the Bible. What book do you substitute for it?

Interesting how two people can look at the exact same thing, and view them so vastly different.

I have noticed that you focus entirely on the negative, often fabricating worse case scenario's in your warped little mind. I cannot imagine having a mind so depraved that one always views things as you do.

The Bible is so full of uplifting and noble thoughts and ideals. And they just "zoom" right by you.

You have my sincerest sympathies.

 

 

of the bible is that humans are born with genetically inherited guilt and must be burned for eternity unless they accept a doctrine unsupported by testable explanation. This is the whole point of Calvary, the fulcrum on which your faith swings. 

When I want something uplifting and noble, I'll read Epicetus or Marcus Aurelius. Clearly, you fail to comprehend the moral inconsistency of your contrived god. You have my most condescending sympathies. 

Your point may be valid if the erroneous doctrine of people burning throughout eternity were true. I do not believe that the bible teaches that. A good study on the topic of Hell, Death, and Eternity does not support that.

What I believe is that people will make their choices, and any punishment will "fit the crime".

In the end, those who choose not to accept God and do not wish to live in His kingdom will get their wish. They will not be burning "forever" in some remote "hell", but will simply cease to exist. Many on this site have expressed that this is indeed their wish.

Eternal life is offered to those who want it. Not forced on anyone. My faith does not "swing on a fulcrum of Eternal life vs eternal suffering. It is eternal life vs no existence at all. It is simply a matter of choice.

Wow, what a non-Biblical position you hold. I thought you knew better. Your belief doesn't change what your book says.

We have already discussed the "hell doctrine" in the grandpa thread. My position is definitely biblical. You don't like a biblical view that does not make God into a monster. It takes a lot of the sting out of your anti God rhetoric.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Wow, what a

jcgadfly wrote:
Wow, what a non-Biblical position you hold. I thought you knew better. Your belief doesn't change what your book says.

There's precious little REAL detail in the Christian bible about Heaven and Hell.  Most of the "Heaven and Hell" doctrines come in very, very late writings (Revelations) or are after the canon is closed.

None of it comes from the Hebrew texts, which points to Roman pagan influences creeping in.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
gramster wrote:We have

gramster wrote:
We have already discussed the "hell doctrine" in the grandpa thread. My position is definitely biblical. You don't like a biblical view that does not make God into a monster. It takes a lot of the sting out of your anti God rhetoric.

There are Atheists who object to G-d from every angle -- including Happy Loving Free Goodies From Heaven Sky Daddy.  It's just they seem stuck on Grumpy Death Wielding Evil Sky Daddy much of the time.

Their real problem is the whole "Sky Daddy" thing.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:None of

FurryCatHerder wrote:

None of it comes from the Hebrew texts, which points to Roman pagan influences creeping in.

 

  Yes, one religious myth layered upon another.  It takes the foolishness of religious superstitions and compounds it even more.  Lovely.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Lion IRC
Theist
Lion IRC's picture
Posts: 158
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Its an Alpha male thingy

FurryCatHerder wrote:

gramster wrote:
We have already discussed the "hell doctrine" in the grandpa thread. My position is definitely biblical. You don't like a biblical view that does not make God into a monster. It takes a lot of the sting out of your anti God rhetoric.

There are Atheists who object to G-d from every angle -- including Happy Loving Free Goodies From Heaven Sky Daddy.  It's just they seem stuck on Grumpy Death Wielding Evil Sky Daddy much of the time.

Their real problem is the whole "Sky Daddy" thing.

 

Yep.

Rule 1. Theres no God.

Rule 2. If there is I hate Him.

 

A lot of people - the ones who claim they dont need "Sky Daddy" to be moral -  dont like speed cameras either.

 

Somebody should tell the police that all those unmarked cars, undercover officers and red light cameras, speed cameras are a waste. Because people/atheists can act morally even when no One is watching.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not even going to bother

I'm not even going to bother counting the strawmen there. So ridiculous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.