Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[KichigaiNeko]

We are an atheist site and are very polite?

That is why we engage in discussion.
As for debate, no theist knows how to let alone succeed in debate with an atheist so the reality is that atheists do not debate we just discuss and let the theists hang themselves.

---

by the way Sciworks.

Now get off your high horse

[Sciworks]

Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus? There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus is nothing but a story corrupted from previous stories. 'Christ' actually comes from two supposed Roman documents which were actually written (copied?) by Christian monks in the Medieval period. One of those shows a clear forging of the the name Chrestianos to Christianos. There are no original documents around the time in existence that mention Jesus or Christ.

So.... if you are going to believe anything those biased monks wrote, then you also have to believe that Chrestus led a rebellion against Julius Caesar. Jewish temples were not just places of worship then, they were banks and held gold and money for lending. That is why, around that time, Roman emperors and governors, like Agrippa II (Herod 2) had trouble with the priests, who were in effect the bankers of their time.

It is written that Chrestus led an uprising, it was probably about money, interest rates or something else that Julius Caesar wanted to impose on the bank.

Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome. We have all been told how bad Nero was, but in fact he wanted a better deal for the poor and this probably enraged the Jewish bankers (he called them Chrestians, as named from the Chrestus uprising 20 years before) who set fire to some of the city.

Chrestus and his followers were persecuted and put to death in the arena, they were probably Jewish bankers and certainly had nothing to do with mythical 'Christians' which is just a corruption of Chrestionos, followers of Chrestus.

If you think I am being anti-Semite, the fact that Jewish temples were used as banks is written online in Jewish wikkis on Jewish sites.

I have no horse and if I did I would not give him drugs to get high on.

[KichigaiNeko]

You need work with your quote tags sweetie.

Like I said... GOYHH

[FallentoReason]

Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus? There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus is nothing but a story corrupted from previous stories. 'Christ' actually comes from two supposed Roman documents which were actually written (copied?) by Christian monks in the Medieval period. One of those shows a clear forging of the the name Chrestianos to Christianos. There are no original documents around the time in existence that mention Jesus or Christ.

So.... if you are going to believe anything those biased monks wrote, then you also have to believe that Chrestus led a rebellion against Julius Caesar. Jewish temples were not just places of worship then, they were banks and held gold and money for lending. That is why, around that time, Roman emperors and governors, like Agrippa II (Herod 2) had trouble with the priests, who were in effect the bankers of their time.

It is written that Chrestus led an uprising, it was probably about money, interest rates or something else that Julius Caesar wanted to impose on the bank.

Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome. We have all been told how bad Nero was, but in fact he wanted a better deal for the poor and this probably enraged the Jewish bankers (he called them Chrestians, as named from the Chrestus uprising 20 years before) who set fire to some of the city.

Chrestus and his followers were persecuted and put to death in the arena, they were probably Jewish bankers and certainly had nothing to do with mythical 'Christians' which is just a corruption of Chrestionos, followers of Chrestus.

If you think I am being anti-Semite, the fact that Jewish temples were used as banks is written online in Jewish wikkis on Jewish sites.

But how does it go from a "story" about bankers and finance to a saviour god being the redeemer of mankind..?

[Drich]

Romans was also written by paul, hence the question, and the comment. (If Paul wrote both He would not have contradicted himself simply because he was writting to a different region.)

Look up what "pseudo" means. You'll learn something new about the composition of your holey book.

I know what it means but because you did not provide something a little more real to go on other than your word, it was rightfully dismissed.

[FallentoReason]

Look up what "pseudo" means. You'll learn something new about the composition of your holey book.

I know what it means but because you did not provide something a little more real to go on other than your word, it was rightfully dismissed.

Biblical scholars have weeded out the forgeries from the authentic ones.

This isn't secret knowledge Drich. Don't make this harder than what it is.

[Drich]

How does one go about verifying this in scripture?

One reads his bible.

Had god not ordered people to do things in the past without an explicit scriptural reference to it?

In the past, before they had the benfit or perspective of a completed bible God sent men like Elijah, or Moses. They carried the word and works of God and spoke to His people.
Meaning the people knew these men were prophets because of the works they did in God's name.

Or has he stopped doing this the moment we gained the ability to accurately record him doing so?

When would that be? The Modern era?

I'll be charitable and leave aside the rather pathetic Godwin, but don't presume to know my moral code, Drich. My morality has nothing to do with popular vote, and I think you know that; my ethics are developed from a rational consideration of the effects my actions have on other people, and from my personal responsibility and empathy to those around me. The laws of our society aren't passed down from your sky-dictator, but from an evolutionary and social development, designed to maintain and propagate a healthy society.

Which are agree upon by the majority of the people living with in the soceity... (AKA popular VOTE)

Otherwise if it was as you said and we all just came to this 'morality' because it was what was best for the propagation of soceity, then all soceities would have come to relitivly the same 'morality.' They haven't have they? For it seems those in the west have a different idea of 'morality' than those in the mid east and far east.

Because morality varies from culture to culture from even generation to generation with in those cultures, morality can be defined as the standard in which a given soceity collectivly agrees to live under as an attempt to live 'righteously.' Now follow me here; Because this 'rightous living' is not God's Stated Righteousness, but a personal sense of righteousness, Christ rightly identified it as "Self Righteousness."

Making ANY version of Morality (Not God's Righteousness or God's perfect Standard) self righteous standard. So no matter where you believe your high and mighty morality comes from, it still falls far short of where it is supposed to be.

And who are you to talk about "Standards" anyway? You don't have a fucking standard! According to you, god's intent overrules any sense of morality you might have, so all the things that normal people find to be evil- you know, murder, rape, theft, all the big ones- are in your mind conditional on what your god has to say about them, case by case! You've spent plenty of time explaining that to me, you can't then turn around and say you have a standard, objective morality, because you don't.

My, 'standards' are not based off of works. As such I do not measure myself against what other men can see and judge. which allows me to not appeal to others to define who I am as a person. For that I turn to God. If you are happy with washing the outside of your cup (Keeping clean only what other men can see while the interrior festers) as the pharasees did, then that is between you and God.

Which is it? Is your concept of good and evil objective and therefore unchanging, or does your god decide whether each individual act is sinful or not?

God laid out a standard. In this case you shall not Murder. Murder is the unsanctioned taking of life. It is Never ok to Murder. If God gives a Kill order then the taking of life is Sanctioned. Nothing Changes. For even if God gives a kill order against a specific people (As He has only done in OT times.) then it is still not ok to Murder. For you see the focous is off of the act of taking of life and placed on obediance to God. Nothing has changed.

Now, does that have to be specific, like an actual order, or can I do the standard theist thing and just twist around any random passage to mean what I need it to mean?

show me what you have.

I do need to remind you that this is a hypothetical, by the way. Unlike you, I know that all murder is wrong, no matter who orders it.

So, if you had an oppertunity to kill/murder little baby hitler, little baby stallin, and or little baby Hirito you would pass, and doom 100 million people to a terriable death?
Mighty 'moral' of you.

Do you honestly think you're such a monster, you require a threat of eternal torture just to stop yourself from killing people? Because I think you've got Stockholm Syndrome toward an idea. But fine, let me rephrase the question: say you found a scriptural, explicit order for you to kill your family. Would you do it?

every last one.

But for the sake of utility, if not just simple politeness, it would have been great if you had answered the question I asked. Instead, you chose to ignore it completely and go off on some tangent before deciding to tell me what I should have meant, and then expected me to play catch up. It's rude, not to mention completely ineffectual.

If I redefined your usage of a term, that was me telling you you are using the popular defination and not one consistant with how the biblical use if framed.

Said every thug demanding protection money, ever.

...And everyone else looking to hold someone accountable to their actions.
Accountablity, not just used by thugs. ;P

Ooh, I have a bit of a thing about people telling me what I want... And this is a weaksauce argument anyway.

You asked why is their suffering. I described the nature of said suffering. Suffering does not come from fire but from seperation.

Proof? Literally every word you have said in this thread since it started. Every last argument you've made. All of them.

Everything, but at the same time nothing. Or is my usage of the word "but" some how proof? what about thugs? Accountablity? I used all of those words and I fail to see how the 'prove' what I asked you to prove.

[Minimalist]

How does one go about verifying this in scripture?

One reads his bible.

One could "verify" Humpty Dumpty in the same manner.

[Drich]

Your interpretation is pretty clear based on your posts. Murder is not murder, so long as god says it's okay. Need I say more?

Welcome to the conversation. Now may I suggest that you ask: When did God say it was ok to kill? To which I will answer: In Old Testament times he gave specific kill orders against a given people, and He has Given authority of life and death to Goverments in modern times.. This means if a goverment needs to wage war then it is permitted. It also means if the goverment wishes to empower it's citizens with the authority to defend themselves, family, other people or even properity then under those conditions it is also ok to kill.

You did not say "Based under the New covenant", you said, "What makes killing a sin is whether or nor God sanctioned the death or if someone took it upon themselves to kill outside of Gods' expressed will."

Which is a blanket statement that is true in either convenat.

You can't just go revising the stipulations of your irrational statements to make them rational. If you were actually referring to the old testament law, you would've put it in there. Don't get all self righteous because I actually took what you said literally as being what you believe.

You took what I said and changed it to fit your arguement. My statement was true as orginally stated.

And as for murder, you seem to have made up your own definition of it. According to the bible, a murder must be intentional and premeditated--spilling of innocent blood is considered wrong. Just because god sanctions a murder, does not mean it is not murder.

Ok, ok so let me get this straight, My biblical defination is wrong. even though it is the one that accounts for the command given to Moses, yet justifies the Kill orders also given to Moses.

But your personal defination one that only looks at the command given to moses, and ignores the rest and chocks up the death and destruction God ordered up to 'savage people.' Yeah, I think I will stick with the bible on that one.

I come to this conclusion not because I disagree with the belief that god is the arbiter of morality thus above judgement--but because he himself claims to have murdered countless individuals who by his own definition: were innocent. Contradictions abound, and give me reason to doubt his infallability, and thus his reality. Hence, without this fake being you wrongly consider to be omnipotent and thus infallable: murder is murder. Black is black. Life isn't grey, and you aren't a risk should you ever do acquire "voices" in your head. By supporting, worshipping, praising and promoting an undeserving, murderous, empirical God, believers' normal moral and legal inhibitors are erased.

so.. If God does not decide what murder is, then who does? You? If you decide then may I ask when is it ok to kill? What if I broke into your home and raped you family? What if this was a weekly event? in your 'judgement' would i deserve to die? If so then what makes your judgement any more valid than God's?

Example of this contradiction: Just ask Jericho, Canaanites, every first born of Egypt, and every innocent child, born or unborn--who endured the flood.

It's only a contratiction under your defination of Murder. If you throw away your broken understanding where murder is never ok unless you say it is, and give the power back to God to perside over life and death then the death of those children are no longer murder.

What happens when two adversaries both have god on their side?

Then no matter the outcome God's will is accomplished. Is it not foolish to think that just because one is in the will of God the out come of a situation will always be favoriable?

I'm not confused as to what the bible says about god. It says god is love. (1 John 4:7-11)
If god is love, then god is love. That's what it says, that's what it says.
It also says that, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13 NIV). Seeing as how Jesus is God, and Jesus did just that--then there is no greater love for man, than Gods'. Based on John 3:16 and Romans 5:8, this love is unconditional. We are all born into sin, thus you can't say that god doesn't love me because I don't love him. He loves me and he loves you, period. I am his creation, he loves himself and everything he creates thus he must love me. If he didn't love humanity, he wouldn't have "sacrificed" himself then explained that that is the greatest love there is.

[/quote]
Read those passages again 1 John4 John is speaking to His followers the believers or 'church' He established. In other words people who have accepted Christ. Why is this important Look at John 3:16 God so loved the word that He gave his only son, THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVES IN HIM Should Not Parrish...

Do you see the condition? "That who so ever believes" is a condition on the 'love' or Agape God offers. God's love does not extend beyong those who accept His Son. Which makes the Love He offers Very Conditional

Again in romans 5 Paul is speaking to a specific group of people. Those people All have one thing in common. They met the conditions of God's love. So everything He said was true for them.

---

How can we choose, if so many people claim their god is the one true god? (and they're all different gods)
How can we chose when they all stink of man-made myth?
How can we choose, when the single piece of information about your god is a book written by a lot of people long ago and who knows what their intentions were? (the same goes for the other gods)

Your grand failure is in understanding the big picture that atheists see.
This is not about either believe in your god or nothing. This is about either believe in this god, that god, the other god, etc, etc, etc or nothing.
And believe is the operative word here.
-- to Believe = accept as an accurate description of reality without proof.
-Believe in other people's claims.
-Believe in whatever is written in a book.
-Or not.

But this is taking us away from this thread's subject....

This is something that I have said from the beginning. If you seek proof of God A/S/K and He will provide it to you specifically. He will give you exactly what you need to establish faith and maintain it. All He asks in return is the obeidance to follow the path to proof He has set before you.

Aye, that much is true.... you present what is written, with a little interpretation thrown in to help us 'good' people understand it differently from its literal meaning.

You do not have because you do not ask. If you ask a question that demands a bible verse I will provide it. If you do not understand how that verse applies it is up to you to ask how it applies. If you do not ask, but instead provide an arguement what recourse do I have but to respond to what is written in either case?

Whatever your god did and made it into the book was obviously justified.
It couldn't possibly have been an a posteriori made up excuse for one people to take over a piece of land.... no, that would be too commonplace.
The winners never exaggerate when they write accounts of their own victories. They never factor in the help they got from their favorite deity, when they write about it... no, they're always completely impartial and independent in their writings.... aren't they? (I think Min is the best person to answer this, given his knowledge of history)

you and minnie do understand that 2/3's of the accounts written about in the bible were israel's defeats and occupations right? (Meaning they were the victors Most of the time.)

---

Esquilax & missluckie26. Our two new heavyweights

Yes welcome to AF

---

[quote='Drich' pid='385925' dateline='1358173149']

I know what it means but because you did not provide something a little more real to go on other than your word, it was rightfully dismissed.

Biblical scholars have weeded out the forgeries from the authentic ones.

This isn't secret knowledge Drich. Don't make this harder than what it is.

On my word I could say the same thing with the oppsite result. If you make a statement it is up to you to defend it when challanged. You sir, have been challenged. Otherwise know your statement has been rightfully dismissed.

[Esquilax]

One reads his bible.

So what's your criteria? What in the bible would be sufficient for you to murder someone? I guess what I'm asking is, you obviously don't need to find a specific "go here on this day and kill X" message, as there aren't any, so what classifies as a kill order in your book?

In the past, before they had the benfit or perspective of a completed bible God sent men like Elijah, or Moses. They carried the word and works of God and spoke to His people.
Meaning the people knew these men were prophets because of the works they did in God's name.

That's interesting, because below you say you don't deal in works for your morality. But also, how do you know the bible is completed now? I mean, the Mormon faith developed a new biblical work centuries after the New Testament; what made you pick the cutoff point you did?

When would that be? The Modern era?

Pretty much. Why does god not move through revelation the way he used to, now that we could verifiably check that out?

Which are agree upon by the majority of the people living with in the soceity... (AKA popular VOTE)

Otherwise if it was as you said and we all just came to this 'morality' because it was what was best for the propagation of soceity, then all soceities would have come to relitivly the same 'morality.' They haven't have they? For it seems those in the west have a different idea of 'morality' than those in the mid east and far east.

Because morality varies from culture to culture from even generation to generation with in those cultures, morality can be defined as the standard in which a given soceity collectivly agrees to live under as an attempt to live 'righteously.' Now follow me here; Because this 'rightous living' is not God's Stated Righteousness, but a personal sense of righteousness, Christ rightly identified it as "Self Righteousness."

I'm actually happy you brought this up. Because, if you look, most societies have developed a basically similar system of morality. Look out, across the board: murder is frowned upon. Rape is frowned upon. Theft is frowned upon. There's no society that looks upon these things as a moral good, and any society that allows murder or rape invariably does it on religious, not secular, grounds. The fact that there are slight variations do not discredit my beliefs about this. If you wish to persist in arguing that they do, I would remind you that your religion can't agree on much either, hence the numerous denominations. So, mutually assured destruction.

Making ANY version of Morality (Not God's Righteousness or God's perfect Standard) self righteous standard. So no matter where you believe your high and mighty morality comes from, it still falls far short of where it is supposed to be.

You don't have a morality, let alone one that's above mine. Actions are either moral or immoral, and that doesn't change. That's what objective means. If murder becomes moral if sanctioned by god, then by definition you are the one with the subjective moral system, not me.

My, 'standards' are not based off of works. As such I do not measure myself against what other men can see and judge. which allows me to not appeal to others to define who I am as a person. For that I turn to God. If you are happy with washing the outside of your cup (Keeping clean only what other men can see while the interrior festers) as the pharasees did, then that is between you and God.

So the actions don't matter, only belief. Good atheist folks go to hell, yet blood soaked, tyrannical christians go to heaven, so long as god was on their side. You really are immoral.

God laid out a standard. In this case you shall not Murder. Murder is the unsanctioned taking of life. It is Never ok to Murder. If God gives a Kill order then the taking of life is Sanctioned. Nothing Changes. For even if God gives a kill order against a specific people (As He has only done in OT times.) then it is still not ok to Murder. For you see the focous is off of the act of taking of life and placed on obediance to God. Nothing has changed.

"Murder is bad, except when it's not bad!"

Makes no sense.

So, if you had an oppertunity to kill/murder little baby hitler, little baby stallin, and or little baby Hirito you would pass, and doom 100 million people to a terriable death?
Mighty 'moral' of you.

That's a much more complex moral issue than I'm willing to deal with here, since it'd derail the thread. I honestly don't know whether I would or wouldn't, but even if I did, I'd still consider it a bad deed. Possibly for the greater good, but I'd absolutely hold myself morally accountable for every bit of it, and accept my just punishment for doing so. You, on the other hand, have set up a system in which it's not necessarily wrong to murder people, so I have to ask: why do you think my supposed unwillingness to kill a baby (or my ability to feel bad if I did) is somehow proof that I'm immoral?

every last one.

I don't think you would. I think for all your posturing, you're more moral than that, and you're more moral than your god. It's just sad that you're willing to pretend otherwise.

If I redefined your usage of a term, that was me telling you you are using the popular defination and not one consistant with how the biblical use if framed.

Still could have stood to answer the question rather than solely providing an unasked for definition. I don't take your bible for toilet paper, so I could care less what it defines words as.

...And everyone else looking to hold someone accountable to their actions.
Accountablity, not just used by thugs. ;P

It's not an issue of accountability, because the terms aren't equal. God can't just do whatever he wants with us, and he can't expect automatic obeisance either. I don't care what you think, that's immoral, it makes him a tyrant. What am I, a good man who's never hurt anyone, never stolen anything, loves his fiancee and plans to start a family with her, done that I need to be held accountable for? Just my nonbelief? And that's worth an eternity in hell? Come on.

Everything, but at the same time nothing. Or is my usage of the word "but" some how proof? what about thugs? Accountablity? I used all of those words and I fail to see how the 'prove' what I asked you to prove.

Forest for the trees, Drich. Forest for the trees...

so.. If God does not decide what murder is, then who does? You? If you decide then may I ask when is it ok to kill? What if I broke into your home and raped you family? What if this was a weekly event? in your 'judgement' would i deserve to die? If so then what makes your judgement any more valid than God's?

Hey, dude, that's my fiancee you're talking to. Cool it with the rape talk, that's creepy.

But I think her point was that murder is never justified, no matter what your god says. Which I would agree with.