Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27 Dec 2017, 10:04 AM   #682378 / #1201
1ICrying
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 62
Default

So then, from whence comes his anger if we were created to do exactly what we did? Is he not able to make us in such a way that we would obey and act according to his desires?

This was posted by Shake just back a bit.

The way I understand it, is that God created us with free will, so although he could see into the future about how we will act, he did allow us to make decisions. Why? Because he didn't want to create just a bunch of robots who were programmed to love him back. So we are unique - we are individuals who can decide to love him or leave him. Some see him as vicious. I see him as the creator and embodiment of Love itself; someone who truly has my back at all times.

So, he could have created robots, but he did not. And when we act completely opposite to the ways of love and his good ways, then of course that would make give him a twinge of dissappointment I suppose - I doubt he was really truly ever angry, since as you say, when you see what's coming, and when you are the embodiment of control, then where could the anger come from. On the other hand, maybe being angry isn't actually all that bad. It's certainly nothing that God couldn't control or handle in the end.

Anyhow, I'm glad you're all debating these things here with me. Don't be afraid to accept the life preserver (Jesus) that God has handed to you (in the face of death). If you want to go on - take it. If you don't, don't. If you just can't believe it - well join the club. Faith is the key. Blind faith. But what about the mithra? Are you going to let a flimsy concept like mithra guarantee your demise? Swallow your foolish pride and come to the Father like a child. Have faith beyond what you can't understand (which is God). Why doesn't he spell it out for us? He did - it's called the Bible. It's in every hotel room.

There are consequences in this life. You can go hiking. You can have a good hike. Or you can make a mistake, slip, and fall to your death. Don't make the eternal slip of flying without a net.
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Heaven is going to be fun - not a boring drag. Say no to death.

I believe it's true, which is why I am going to badger you to put on your life preserver before we get to the falls and it's too late.

Thank you,

1I


ps: Roo, Jobar - congratulations on reading the Bible so quickly and so young. In the words of Vernon Howard: Knowledge without insight is like a horse in a library.
1ICrying is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Dec 2017, 03:44 PM   #682383 / #1202
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Fine, then deal with your contradiction in regard to god not having any choices while at the same time stating that everyone in the story has choices. It’s amazing how powerless this all powerful being becomes when it suits the argument.
I'm not sure how that is my contradiction.
Because you posted it.

Quote:
All I said was that everyone in the story has choices; that includes God
And what choices were god’s to make?

Quote:
but I think it absurd to blame him for a murder that others committed.
Irony. Big fan.
__________________
Stupidity is not intellen
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Dec 2017, 04:38 PM   #682384 / #1203
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

Quote:
The way I understand it, is that God created us with free will, so although he could see into the future about how we will act, he did allow us to make decisions. Why? Because he didn't want to create just a bunch of robots who were programmed to love him back.
Yes, the “no robots” apologia. The problem with it, of course, is that, to an Omni-being we would absolutely be robots. It created us, the universe and everything. It programmed us according to its ineffable plan. It would know—from the instant it existed—every single thing we would ever do say or believe. Indeed, it would necessarily have to have programmed us to do and say and believe exactly as we do if there is any kind of “plan.”

Regardless, we could not ever do anything that god did not already know we would do, exactly like robots.

Quote:
So we are unique - we are individuals who can decide to love him or leave him.
Ah, but we can’t decide that without being able to fully and completely judge “his” actions and to do that, we would have to know his plan and he could not be ineffable to us.

Plus there could not be ANY adverse consequences to our decision not to love him. If there were, then it’s coercion.

Remember, god sets the rules and has all the power, so if we are punished in ANY way—directly or indirectly—for deciding not to love him, then its entirely and completely god’s fault and our decision cannot be considered “free will.”

But he already knows what we will decide long before we ever exist, so that likewise means we cannot have free will. The only way we could be said to have free will is if we existed independently of this being and this being had no idea at all what we would decide to do (plus all the above regarding necessarily being able to fully know god’s mind and intentions in order to make such an assessment).

Quote:
Some see him as vicious. I see him as the creator and embodiment of Love itself; someone who truly has my back at all times.
Except when he doesn’t and then it becomes, “God answers all prayers, just sometimes the answer is ‘no’” or some other such rationalization. Programmed, just like a robot.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Dec 2017, 05:58 PM   #682390 / #1204
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ICrying View Post
The way I understand it, is that God created us with free will, so although he could see into the future about how we will act, he did allow us to make decisions. Why? Because he didn't want to create just a bunch of robots who were programmed to love him back. So we are unique - we are individuals who can decide to love him or leave him. Some see him as vicious. I see him as the creator and embodiment of Love itself; someone who truly has my back at all times.
The "free will" bullshit has always been laughable. The real reason that the cartoon god doesn't interfere with our behavior is that he can't, being imaginary and all. So free will was created to get around that.

What if the police behaved like that? There would be no attempt at crime prevention, because that would interfere with the free will of the criminals. They must be permitted to commit the crime, because the punishment is the whole point. So a lot of people would die or get robbed in the name of free will. Lucky for us, the police don't actually want anything to happen to their citizens.
Quote:
So, he could have created robots, but he did not. And when we act completely opposite to the ways of love and his good ways, then of course that would make give him a twinge of dissappointment I suppose - I doubt he was really truly ever angry, since as you say, when you see what's coming, and when you are the embodiment of control, then where could the anger come from.
And when it's his own fault for allowing it to happen. If he doesn't like "sin", he can easily prevent it.
Quote:
Faith is the key. Blind faith.
Only in religion is blind faith a virtue. If it's a good thing, why not use it in all aspects of your life? Don't bother with contracts any more. Buy a house without one. After all, you can have faith that the other person will do what they say and of course they will.

But next you will say: "that's blind faith in a man; I'm talking about blind faith in a god". Yet you admit that the bible was written by men. You have blind faith that those men were speaking for a god, as opposed to spouting random shit. Why do you have blind faith in the words of those men, and not in the words of a used car dealer?
Quote:
Swallow your foolish pride and come to the Father like a child.
I have to agree with you there. Religion is childish. Perfect for people who can't deal with life as it is. Or the inevitability of death.
Quote:
Heaven is going to be fun - not a boring drag.
Prove it. Describe exactly what it will be like, in great detail.
Quote:
I believe it's true, which is why I am going to badger you to put on your life preserver before we get to the falls and it's too late.
To "badger" is a negative term. "Stop badgering the witness." What a thing to be proud of.

Why don't you try to knock down a brick wall with your head? It would be far easier. You simply have nothing to work with, so your efforts are more comical than effective. Blind faith results in blind assertions.
__________________
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 03:42 AM   #682398 / #1205
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And what choices were god’s to make?
The things God does in the story?
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 04:53 AM   #682399 / #1206
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And what choices were god’s to make?
The things God does in the story?
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10 NIV
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 02:18 PM   #682402 / #1207
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And what choices were god’s to make?
The things God does in the story?
Are we playing questions?

What choices are available to a being that can create our entire universe and is said to be “all powerful” and “all knowing”? Again, Jesus prays—begs—god three times to save him. Did Jesus not know what god was capable of? Three times?

As Hermit pointed out, god supposedly sent (trifurcated) Jesus as a sacrificial atonement for mankind’s sins (again; he never can get it right for some bizarre reason). Instead of just forgiving us our sins (since he created them in the first place).

Jesus is fully aware of his fate and his relationship to Jehovah and still he begs “dad” to make it all go away three times. So was Jesus just desperate or something? Blinded by fear somehow in a moment of panic? He—being Jesus—just forgot that Jehovah could not hear or grant his prayer?

And god’s choice then was to ignore his son’s prayers and do nothing to stop the sacrifice they both evidently know is coming. What do you call someone who knows a crime is going to be committed—has the power to prevent it—yet does nothing to intervene?

Worse, the “crime” was of god’s making and was committed by the great great great great great great great great great grandfather of Jesus. So what do you call someone who declares that a crime he made up was committed thousands of years prior, decides it must be paid for today and that the payment must be the death of a perfectly innocent man? He then further decides that this man must be his own son (let’s leave the trinity nonsense out of it) and so he sends his son to earth through magical means all the while both of them knowing that the whole purpose of his son’s existence is to be killed as a sacrifice to the father.

You know what,never mind. It’s just too stupid to go into all over again.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 02:41 PM   #682403 / #1208
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And what choices were god’s to make?
The things God does in the story?
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10 NIV
You're mixing stories from different books here. But, let's roll with it.

If you allowed your son to enroll in the military, say, and he was killed in action, would you consider yourself personally responsible for his death?
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 02:59 PM   #682407 / #1209
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,148
Default

Quote:
Faith is the key. Blind faith.
Yes indeed. I tell you that you should have blind faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You can take my word for it, I'm a recognized holy man and high official in Her church. We must take it on faith that She is Pink, but we know for an absolute fact that She is Invisible, for of course we can't see Her!

Believing on Her will get you admitted to the Great Beach Bash in the Sky. Way, way better than that paltry 'Heaven'!
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 03:02 PM   #682408 / #1210
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And what choices were god’s to make?
The things God does in the story?
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10 NIV
You're mixing stories from different books here.
Not really:

Quote:
Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them...35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
But why quibble?

Quote:
If you allowed your son to enroll in the military, say, and he was killed in action, would you consider yourself personally responsible for his death?
Once again you envision a completely powerless all powerful being.

To make it analogous, you would have to require that your son enroll in the military and be killed as a necessary sacrifice to you. A death you both know is pre-ordained (because you ordained it) and a death that you are perfectly capable of preventing or simply not requiring in the first place.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 28 Dec 2017 at 03:19 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 03:45 PM   #682410 / #1211
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And what choices were god’s to make?
The things God does in the story?
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10 NIV
You're mixing stories from different books here. But, let's roll with it.

If you allowed your son to enroll in the military, say, and he was killed in action, would you consider yourself personally responsible for his death?
Quoting a single verse from a single chapter of a single book can hardly be described as mixing stories from different books, but yes, let's roll.

If I sent my son down to planet earth as an atoning sacrifice for humankind's sins I'd find it somewhat difficult to deny responsibility for his death.

Read the fucking Bible already. It does say that daddy god sent sonny god to earth in order to be killed and thus become the sacrificial lamb that will atone for all of humans' sins. Koy pointed out that according to the same Bible Jesus begged his dad three times to rescind the decision to have him killed.

At this stage you have said exactly nothing to counter what the Bible states, which is that the Christian god saw no other way of forgiving humankind for its sins than to sacrifice the life of his own son. "Hey dudes, here's my son. If you kill him I'll forgive you." Ludicrous as it is, that is the central point of the entire New Testament.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 07:41 PM   #682411 / #1212
BWE
twisting truth since 1957
 
BWE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness
Posts: 9,640
Default

Quote:
Ludicrous as it is, that is the central point of the entire New Testament.
It's also the least important part from the perspective of Jesus's teachings. Seems kind of odd to me.
BWE is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Dec 2017, 10:31 PM   #682413 / #1213
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
Quote:
Ludicrous as it is, that is the central point of the entire New Testament.
It's also the least important part from the perspective of Jesus's teachings. Seems kind of odd to me.
Not when one considers that the actual Jesus was the leader of an insurrectionist movement martyred by Pilate, which then became the basis of a larger rebellion that eventually became the full blown Jewish revolt.

As a real event that had to be “spun” by Roman propagandists trying to infiltrate and subvert a nascent martyr-cult from within, it makes perfect sense. Romans perfected this kind of espionage (Pilate included at the Aquaduct).
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Dec 2017, 12:24 AM   #682417 / #1214
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
Once again you envision a completely powerless all powerful being.
When did I make either of those claims?

And last I looked, in the story we are looking at, Jesus was executed on false claims of sedition, not sacrificed to an angry God. I am not interested in, and will not be, defending medieval nonsense about sating God's holy wrath or what have you.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Dec 2017, 12:33 AM   #682418 / #1215
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
The things God does in the story?
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10 NIV
You're mixing stories from different books here. But, let's roll with it.

If you allowed your son to enroll in the military, say, and he was killed in action, would you consider yourself personally responsible for his death?
Quoting a single verse from a single chapter of a single book can hardly be described as mixing stories from different books, but yes, let's roll.

If I sent my son down to planet earth as an atoning sacrifice for humankind's sins I'd find it somewhat difficult to deny responsibility for his death.

Read the fucking Bible already. It does say that daddy god sent sonny god to earth in order to be killed and thus become the sacrificial lamb that will atone for all of humans' sins. Koy pointed out that according to the same Bible Jesus begged his dad three times to rescind the decision to have him killed.

At this stage you have said exactly nothing to counter what the Bible states, which is that the Christian god saw no other way of forgiving humankind for its sins than to sacrifice the life of his own son. "Hey dudes, here's my son. If you kill him I'll forgive you." Ludicrous as it is, that is the central point of the entire New Testament.
If you think that's the central point of the entire New Testament, we have very different readings of that particular anthology.

But in any case, I don't see sending someone into a situation where you know they may be hurt as on the same level of offense as being the ones doing the hurting. I don't think that Jesus "had" to be killed, nor do I think he wanted to be killed. It was, however, the inevitable impact of living his life as he did, and I think he accepted that. God, to whatever extent he was involved (he's not actually a very well-defined character in the Gospels themselves) was clearly willing that this should happen also. I even agree that this was "in atonement for sins" from Jesus' own perspective, but Jesus was a 1st century Jew, and I think you are interpreting Jewish law in a very 21st century Protestant Christian way here.

In Judaism, it doesn't matter whether or not the sacrifice occurs, unless there is true repentance at the heart of the sacrifice. What makes Jesus a sacrifice then? It isn't the anger of the crowd, that makes no sense whatsoever, as none of them were at all repentant of their deeds. Nor is the wrath or honor of God. Rather, Jesus willingly makes a sacrifice of his body, becoming a receptacle for the sins of many. I do not see this as a singular act, but one which occurs every time someone sacrifices their life on another's behalf, as Christ himself taught us to do.

I realize that you would rather staunchly defend the Baptist perspective so as to dismiss it than argue with a liberal honestly, but if you really insist on talking about sating the anger of God as being the central theme of the New Testament, then I have a question for you: Why, in all four of the Gospels, four different versions of the events that transpired at the end of Jesus' life, is God never described as being angry at us all?

Last edited by Politesse; 29 Dec 2017 at 12:47 AM.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Dec 2017, 05:06 AM   #682420 / #1216
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10 NIV
You're mixing stories from different books here. But, let's roll with it.

If you allowed your son to enroll in the military, say, and he was killed in action, would you consider yourself personally responsible for his death?
Quoting a single verse from a single chapter of a single book can hardly be described as mixing stories from different books, but yes, let's roll.

If I sent my son down to planet earth as an atoning sacrifice for humankind's sins I'd find it somewhat difficult to deny responsibility for his death.

Read the fucking Bible already. It does say that daddy god sent sonny god to earth in order to be killed and thus become the sacrificial lamb that will atone for all of humans' sins. Koy pointed out that according to the same Bible Jesus begged his dad three times to rescind the decision to have him killed.

At this stage you have said exactly nothing to counter what the Bible states, which is that the Christian god saw no other way of forgiving humankind for its sins than to sacrifice the life of his own son. "Hey dudes, here's my son. If you kill him I'll forgive you." Ludicrous as it is, that is the central point of the entire New Testament.
If you think that's the central point of the entire New Testament, we have very different readings of that particular anthology.

But in any case, I don't see sending someone into a situation where you know they may be hurt as on the same level of offense as being the ones doing the hurting. I don't think that Jesus "had" to be killed, nor do I think he wanted to be killed. It was, however, the inevitable impact of living his life as he did, and I think he accepted that. God, to whatever extent he was involved (he's not actually a very well-defined character in the Gospels themselves) was clearly willing that this should happen also. I even agree that this was "in atonement for sins" from Jesus' own perspective, but Jesus was a 1st century Jew, and I think you are interpreting Jewish law in a very 21st century Protestant Christian way here.

In Judaism, it doesn't matter whether or not the sacrifice occurs, unless there is true repentance at the heart of the sacrifice. What makes Jesus a sacrifice then? It isn't the anger of the crowd, that makes no sense whatsoever, as none of them were at all repentant of their deeds. Nor is the wrath or honor of God. Rather, Jesus willingly makes a sacrifice of his body, becoming a receptacle for the sins of many. I do not see this as a singular act, but one which occurs every time someone sacrifices their life on another's behalf, as Christ himself taught us to do.

I realize that you would rather staunchly defend the Baptist perspective so as to dismiss it than argue with a liberal honestly, but if you really insist on talking about sating the anger of God as being the central theme of the New Testament, then I have a question for you: Why, in all four of the Gospels, four different versions of the events that transpired at the end of Jesus' life, is God never described as being angry at us all?
Which part of 1 John 4:10's God sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins do you have problems comprehending? Or are you suggesting it's an insertion by later, medieval vendors of nonsense?

While you are reading this, please point to any bits where I really insist on talking about sating the anger of God as being the central theme of the New Testament. In fact, any hinting of me about god's anger will do just fine.
Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Dec 2017, 01:31 PM   #682423 / #1217
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

So, Poli, what is the real story? A semi non-orthodox Rabbi that had found some minor popularity among some Jews in Jerusalem was killed by Pilate for sedition. The end? God has no powers and no choices in spite of the fact that he is the one who creates all powers and sets all choices?

If you require the death of your innocent son—and have the power to prevent it, but do not, based entirely on that requirement that you set—then you are to blame for his death. It wouldn’t matter what weapon was used—including a crowd—if you were the one who had the power to prevent yet intent to allow.

And Jesus did not make a “willing” sacrifice of himself. He literally threw himself to the ground three times and begged Jehovah to stop what he supposedly already knew was his inevitable fate. Not what I will, but what YOU will. That’s not medieval, that’s his own (alleged) words.

ETA: And just for the record, your nonsense about the “true sacrifice” makes no sense (above and beyond the notion of a sacrifice in the first place), as it isn’t the lamb that must be repentant; it is the one killing the lamb—offering its blood as a sacrifice—that must be repentant. The lamb doesn’t suddenly become self-aware, look around and state, “I sacrifice myself for the sins of others” and then plunge itself onto the sacrificial knife.

For it to truly have resulted in atonement, everyone involved would have had to be steadfastly repentant and fully aware and in agreement of their sacrificial actions; knowingly cutting the throat of the innocent lamb of god to appease Jehovah, not angrily demanding his crucifixion for no reason whatsoever. Indeed, the only person that remotely fits that bill would be Pilate with his ludicrous and ahistorical washing of his hands, but that’s just crazy revision to hide the true story (that we have still never seen) from the Romans.

Which only leaves the idea that Jehovah and Jesus both knew everyone in Jerusalem would collectively conspire to kill Jesus in anger and without repentance and that Jehovah required a non-repentant sacrifice—the cold-blooded, premeditated murder of an innocent forgive them father for they know not what they do sacrifice—in order to appease his own wrath and grant humanity re-admittance into an eternal Eden by his side (or however you want to spin whatever you think god was doing all of this nonsense for).

So while you are railing against medieval/southern baptist interpretations, you should most certainly add in your own as it is fully and completely contradicted by the actual words and actions of the lamb and how anyone from that time period would have viewed a blood sacrifice.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 29 Dec 2017 at 02:33 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Dec 2017, 06:17 PM   #682431 / #1218
Roo St. Gallus
Loose Contact
 
Roo St. Gallus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 8,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

And Jesus did not make a “willing” sacrifice of himself. He literally threw himself to the ground three times and begged Jehovah to stop what he supposedly already knew was his inevitable fate. Not what I will, but what YOU will. That’s not medieval, that’s his own (alleged) words.
Yeah...That was really a high drama scene. (GMatt 26:36-46, right?)

Who was it that was the witness for all that? Who overheard this crisis of angst and committed it to memory, and then to text? It must have been heart rending to watch Jesus go through such anguish. We are all so damned lucky that some historical chronicler was right there, johnny-on-the-spot, to get all the excruciating details. I didn't catch the chronicler's name....Did you?
__________________
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Last edited by Roo St. Gallus; 29 Dec 2017 at 07:50 PM.
Roo St. Gallus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 29 Dec 2017, 10:05 PM   #682434 / #1219
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,249
Default

I'm not sure that "witnessing" matters at all. These fuckers are "inspired by god", right? He could have planted this shit directly in their brains, word for word. They could have written it while lying on the beach in Honolulu. Why would anyone be in the Middle East if they didn't have to be? Not to mention that it could have been implanted in our brains, no need to be written down at all.

With all this alleged power, this god sure does everything the hard way. Almost as if ignorant, primitive men were really responsible for all this. Nah, it couldn't be that.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 Jan 2018, 04:00 AM   #682486 / #1220
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
And Jesus did not make a “willing” sacrifice of himself. He literally threw himself to the ground three times and begged Jehovah to stop what he supposedly already knew was his inevitable fate. Not what I will, but what YOU will. That’s not medieval, that’s his own (alleged) words.
Which is stupid, when you think about it. He's supposed to be a third of the creator of the universe, temporarily stuffed into a man-suit. It would have been trivial to shut off the pain, assuming he would have actually felt it anyway. The holes in the gag are uncountable.
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 Jan 2018, 02:58 PM   #682550 / #1221
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,148
Default

Quote:
a third of the creator of the universe, temporarily stuffed into a man-suit.
Heh.

I do note that if the tale is meant as a pantheistic parable, it makes way more sense than the standard Christian interpretation, with JC as the one and only true incarnation of God in human form. I rather suspect that was the original intent of the story- an attempt to express 'Thou art God' in a form more palatable to Jews, who considered any such elevation of humanity as blackest heresy.
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 Jan 2018, 06:07 PM   #682551 / #1222
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Quote:
a third of the creator of the universe, temporarily stuffed into a man-suit.
Heh.

I do note that if the tale is meant as a pantheistic parable, it makes way more sense than the standard Christian interpretation, with JC as the one and only true incarnation of God in human form. I rather suspect that was the original intent of the story- an attempt to express 'Thou art God' in a form more palatable to Jews, who considered any such elevation of humanity as blackest heresy.
This is heavily implied by the prelude to the Gospel of John, in my opinion.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 Jan 2018, 06:49 PM   #682552 / #1223
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

If you mean "pantheistic" in the sense of multiple gods, then that still makes Jesus a god of some sort, which in turn would only affirm his knowledge that the higher god to which he is praying--his "father" supposedly--is still the one that is orchestrating/requiring Jesus' death as a sacrificial atonement. Iow, he knows that Jehovah has the power to stop Jesus' death--and evidently Jesus has the power as well--but will defer to Jehovah's will over Jesus' own will.

In short and once again, it means God killed Jesus.

And if you mean it in the sense of the whole universe is godstuff, then it's right back into the realm of the trinity; of a being that is unnecessarily incarnating part of itself into human shape for the express purpose of being killed as a necessary sacrifice to its non-incarnate self.

In short, no matter how you try to spin it, it is incoherent drivel at best; immoral and dangerous nonsense at worst. Kill an innocent to pay for the crimes of others is simply unsupportable, which is of course why the apologetics exists in the first place.

But that only serves to extend the life of the cult, rather than bury it as it should be based on such horrific, immoral "lessons." Every time some cult member says, "God loved us so much He gave us his son" it just reinforces an evil act without the individual who reinforced it any the wiser. Imagine if instead of death, the story ended with Jesus being raped and people today went around saying, "God loved us so much He gave us his son to rape." The cult likely never would have survived more than a generation or two and then only among rapists.

I can hear Poli's mind snapping on that one, but it's the exact same structure; an horrific, unacceptable immoral act (killing an innocent to "pay" for someone else's crime) being spun to mean something else. The only difference is thousands of years of majority cult programming making the one acceptable.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 04 Jan 2018 at 08:46 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 Jan 2018, 07:59 PM   #682555 / #1224
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
If you mean "pantheistic" in the sense of multiple gods, then that still makes Jesus a god of some sort, which in turn would only affirm his knowledge that the higher god to which he is praying--his "father" supposedly--is still the one that is orchestrating/requiring Jesus' death as a sacrificial atonement. Iow, he knows that Jehovah has the power to stop Jesus' death--and evidently Jesus has the power as well--but will defer to Jehovah's will over Jesus' own will.

In short and once again, it means God killed Jesus.

And if you mean it in the sense of the whole universe is godstuff, then it's right back into the realm of the trinity; of a being that is unnecessarily incarnating part of itself into human shape for the express purpose of being killed as a necessary sacrifice to its non-incarnate self.

In short, no matter how you try to spin it, it is incoherent drivel at best; immoral and dangerous nonsense at worst. Kill an innocent to pay for the crimes of others is simply unsupportable, which is of course why the apologetics exists in the first place.

But that only serves to extend the life of the cult, rather than bury it as it should be based on such horrific, immoral "lessons." Every time some cult member says, "He loved us so much he gave us his son" it just reinforces an evil act without the individual saying it any the wiser. Imagine if instead of death, the story ended with Jesus being raped and people today went around saying, "He loved us so much he gave us his son to rape."

I can hear Poli's mind snapping on that one, but it's the exact same structure; an horrific, unacceptable immoral act (killing an innocent to "pay" for someone else's crime) being spun to mean something else. The only difference is thousands of years of majority cult programming making the one acceptable.
I don't see why you think that would snap my mind. From a pantheistic perspective, that happens literally every time something dies, as everything is God, and everything dies to the benefit of something else, which also is God. "There is nothing outside the march, so nothing can be lost to it." I find it a comforting, not disturbing, philosophy. There is no "non-incarnate self" in pantheism, nor are there multiple gods (that's polytheism). Rather, we are all God, the heinous and the beautiful, and the more you contemplate this line of thinking, the more you wonder about the ultimate importance of such subjective characterizations of the universe. After all: we ourselves, the human race and all of its inventions both joyous and cruel, have been a part of it all for only a blink of an eye. Even life and death have only a few billion years to their credit, unless you want to expand their definitions in a way that would make an atheist uncomfortable.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 04 Jan 2018, 09:14 PM   #682556 / #1225
Koyaanisqatsi
Semper oppugnant quod max
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
If you mean "pantheistic" in the sense of multiple gods, then that still makes Jesus a god of some sort, which in turn would only affirm his knowledge that the higher god to which he is praying--his "father" supposedly--is still the one that is orchestrating/requiring Jesus' death as a sacrificial atonement. Iow, he knows that Jehovah has the power to stop Jesus' death--and evidently Jesus has the power as well--but will defer to Jehovah's will over Jesus' own will.

In short and once again, it means God killed Jesus.

And if you mean it in the sense of the whole universe is godstuff, then it's right back into the realm of the trinity; of a being that is unnecessarily incarnating part of itself into human shape for the express purpose of being killed as a necessary sacrifice to its non-incarnate self.

In short, no matter how you try to spin it, it is incoherent drivel at best; immoral and dangerous nonsense at worst. Kill an innocent to pay for the crimes of others is simply unsupportable, which is of course why the apologetics exists in the first place.

But that only serves to extend the life of the cult, rather than bury it as it should be based on such horrific, immoral "lessons." Every time some cult member says, "He loved us so much he gave us his son" it just reinforces an evil act without the individual saying it any the wiser. Imagine if instead of death, the story ended with Jesus being raped and people today went around saying, "He loved us so much he gave us his son to rape."

I can hear Poli's mind snapping on that one, but it's the exact same structure; an horrific, unacceptable immoral act (killing an innocent to "pay" for someone else's crime) being spun to mean something else. The only difference is thousands of years of majority cult programming making the one acceptable.
I don't see why you think that would snap my mind. From a pantheistic perspective, that happens literally every time something dies, as everything is God, and everything dies to the benefit of something else, which also is God. "There is nothing outside the march, so nothing can be lost to it." I find it a comforting, not disturbing, philosophy. There is no "non-incarnate self" in pantheism, nor are there multiple gods (that's polytheism). Rather, we are all God, the heinous and the beautiful, and the more you contemplate this line of thinking, the more you wonder about the ultimate importance of such subjective characterizations of the universe. After all: we ourselves, the human race and all of its inventions both joyous and cruel, have been a part of it all for only a blink of an eye. Even life and death have only a few billion years to their credit, unless you want to expand their definitions in a way that would make an atheist uncomfortable.
Which is all very flowery and pretty poetry, but you are then once again faced with the problem of Jesus--a being that supposedly knows the true nature of his own existence, the universe's "existence" and such a god's existence--begging god/the universe to rescind god/the universe's requirement of sacrificial death atonement three times; accepting that god/the universe will evidently not rescind or stop its requirement; and finally giving Jesus' own will over to God's will (meaning discrete entities, not all parts of a whole). Not what I will, but what you will.

And it requires you to go to great lengths to spin it (as you are now) in order to fit into your interpretation. The Jesus depicted in those stories--which is the only Jesus that exists to us--is very clearly NOT pantheistic in the sense you mean it.

ETA: BTW, pantheism also means "the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)" so it includes polytheism.

Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 04 Jan 2018 at 09:46 PM.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus