(February 24, 2012 at 12:29 am)Bgood Wrote: Jesus is a posterchild for Xtian propaganda.

Oh absolutely. They just love to use Jesus as a hate tool.

Ironically I actually feel far closer to Jesus now than I ever did as a Christian.

I now view him more like an ancient Dalai Lama.

Just imagine the Dalai Lama going around teaching the same moral values that Jesus taught. And then imagine them taking the Dalai Lama and beating the hell out of him and nailing him to a pole for blaspheme.

That's basically what happened.

So I respect Jesus in the same way that I would respect Tenzin Gyatso (the Dahai Lama). Jesus was just a mortal man in the same way as Tenzin Gyatso.

In fact, if the Hebrew rumors of Jesus were true and Jesus was some sort of divine being, then I would have absolutely no respect for him at all. None whatsoever. For a supreme being to pull a stunt like that for the sake of creating a drama play would be truly despicable. But for Jesus to be the planned demigod Son of the God of Abraham, that would mean that the God of Abraham would have had to design this whole charade in the first place. And that's not good!

On the contrary that would be one hell of a disgusting thing to do.

Jesus as a mortal man can be an admirable thing.

Jesus as a demigod would be nothing but a disgrace for both Jesus and God.

Quote:Abracadabra wrote

So I respect Jesus in the same way that I would respect Tenzin Gyatso (the Dahai Lama). Jesus was just a mortal man in the same way as Tenzin Gyatso.

I am open to the idea of a Gnostic Jesus who may have traveled to India while in his 20's as a mortal man who became "enlightened" (for lack of a better term) and eventually taught his wisdom throughout the Mediterranian for the common good. But in comparison to the Daliai Lama, whom of course we all know is real (and really endearing), I personally do not think that Jesus Christ ever existed in history. From all the in-depth info that I have gathered, esp. concerning Greek, Roman and Jewish historians who lived in and around 0-100 A.D., there is no real evidence of Jesus ever existing except outside the Bible, which I think we can all easily discredit as a very unreliable source. Although some 'debunkers' have claimed that this video clip is inaccurate, I think it gets the main point across. Jesus is basically as mythological as Zeus or Dionysus. Not to mention very entertaining!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...DD690205A3

---

This is the truth, it mesmorizes me...

(February 24, 2012 at 3:10 am)Bgood Wrote:

Quote:Abracadabra wrote

So I respect Jesus in the same way that I would respect Tenzin Gyatso (the Dahai Lama). Jesus was just a mortal man in the same way as Tenzin Gyatso.

I am open to the idea of a Gnostic Jesus who may have traveled to India while in his 20's as a mortal man who became "enlightened" (for lack of a better term) and eventually taught his wisdom throughout the Mediterranian for the common good. But in comparison to the Daliai Lama, whom of course we all know is real (and really endearing), I personally do not think that Jesus Christ ever existed in history. From all the in-depth info that I have gathered, esp. concerning Greek, Roman and Jewish historians who lived in and around 0-100 A.D., there is no real evidence of Jesus ever existing except outside the Bible, which I think we can all easily discredit as a very unreliable source. Although some 'debunkers' have claimed that this video clip is inaccurate, I think it gets the main point across. Jesus is basically as mythological as Zeus or Dionysus. Not to mention very entertaining!

Thanks for posting the video Bgood. I'll have to wait until I can get over to the library to watch it though. I only have dial-up here.

I'm inclined to agree that the Jesus character described in the New Testament is indeed a totally fictitious character.

When I suggest that the "real Jesus" may have been a Mahayana Buddhist, I don't mean to imply that we should take the New Testament Stories verbatim and just try to view "that Jesus" as being a correct description of the Mahayana Buddhist who may have sparked these rumors.

I think that clearly there are a lot of false stories, extreme exaggerations, and even totally made up events and conversations contained within the New Testament rumors.

In that sense they are totally fictional. (or at least many parts of them are totally fictional), just like the parts that claim that God spoke from a cloud saying, "This is my beloved son, hear him", and the parts of Jesus raising from the dead along with a multitude of other saints, etc.

A lot of it is just totally made up outright lies. That much we can be certain of.

Just the same, I feel that the overall story may still have been sparked by someone who did the following:

1. Claimed to be "One with God" (i.e. the Buddhist view)
And being a Jew he probably would have referred to "God" as "the Father".

2. Was of blaspheme for this.
That's reasonable. Especially if pharisees didn't like what he was preaching.

3. He may have very well defended himself by pointing out that even the Torah says, "Ye are gods".
That too makes sense. May as well use the Torah to support the Buddhist pantheist view if it fits. Why not?

4. He probably did renounce the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinners.
He probably recognized that the Torah contains a lot of immoral garbage and tried to get people to move away from those teachings.

5. He probably did teach people to forgive and not to seek revenge.
Again, trying to get them to move away from the "Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth" mentality.

6. He probably did proclaim that he didn't come to change the laws.
After all he was clearly rejecting teachings of the Torah so he would need to defend that he's not exactly changing the "laws".

He was no doubt trying to work within the religious culture the best he could.

7. He probably did have many run-ins with the Pharisees and probably did publicly call them hypocrites.

8. The Pharisees probably did finally incite a mob to have him brutally crucified on charges of blaspheme.

~~~~

Had all of that happened without any miracles of turning wine into water, or any other such nonsense. That alone would have been enough to spark extremely hot and controversial rumors.

Just like I said, imagine someone as nice as the Dalai Lama being convicted by Abrahamic Pharisees who incite a mob to have him crucified.

After having someone like the Dalai Lama nailed to a pole, there would be much controversy and rumors that would not easily settle.

And many of those rumors would have been focused on 'Who was this man', and what did he stand for?

That would have been the crux of the controversy and rumors.

Once it was recognized by religious authorities that a case could be made that this guy was the messiah, the Son of the God of Abraham, that idea was jumped on, and the rest is history.

~~~~

Do I know that this was what actually happened?

No, of course not. The whole thing could have been made up from total scratch as pure fiction, as you suggest. I personally completely rule out the possibility that it could have anything to do with a God who planned out this whole ugly scenario. That is totally unacceptable to me. Such a God who would plan this whole thing out from a virgin birth onward, would be one sick puppy.

So the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham isn't even remotely reasonable to me, in any way imaginable. Jesus clearly didn't even agree with the teachings of the Torah.

I also have difficulty believing that someone would have made up a fictional story precisely like this either. Why bother having Jesus renounce major teachings of the Torah if you're just going to make the story up from scratch?

This is the main reason why I feel that it was probably sparked by actual rumors of someone who taught things that could not easily be dismissed.

Most many people of the time may have already been aware that this guy taught against various things in the Torah. That's why he was crucified by the Pharisees.

So those things had to be incorporated into the story to keep the story convincing.

This is why I feel that stories were sparked and partly driven by some actual event. Some guy renounced various teachings of the Torah, called the pharisees hypocrites, got himself crucified over it, and that's what sparked these rumors.

To me, that just makes the most sense of all.

But that in no way means that every 'quote' in the Bible that is being attributed to "Jesus" necessarily refers back to the actual person who may have sparked these rumors. Clearly after he was dead they could put any words into his mouth that they wanted to. Save for perhaps some of the things that he rebelled against, like the stoning of sinners to death, the seeking of revenge, etc.

But they were free to shove new ideas into his dead mouth via their rumors all the wanted.

So yes, the "Jesus" of the New Testament would not be a verbatim copy of the "Jesus" who might have sparked these rumors. In fact, the "Real Jesus" probably would object to most of what was written about him in the New Testament as being totally made up lies.

So in that sense, the New Testament Jesus is a work of fiction.

~~~~
I'll watch that video the next time I go to town.

(February 23, 2012 at 8:42 pm)Abracadabra Wrote:

(February 23, 2012 at 7:08 pm)chipan Wrote: I'm not gonna play this back and forth "nuh uh" game.

Sure you are. That's precisely why you log onto these forums.

If you wanted to have positive discussions with like-minded individuals you'd join a Christian forum. There mere fact that you have joined an atheist forum to proselytize your religion proves that you're just looking to argue with people over it.

Obviously your just frustrated because you can't deny the points I make.

The biblical cannon is riddled with endless contradictions and they even have Jesus himself making statements that clearly fly in the face of the many of the sick demented things that Christians often demand that Jesus stood for.

If you're going to demand that Jesus is an egotistical bastard who will hate everyone who doesn't acknowledge that he's God, then you've got your work cut out for you.

There are clearly many quotes attribute to Jesus that suggest just the opposite.

Jesus said that he did not come for the righteous but rather for the spiritually sick. Therefore Jesus himself recognized that not everyone is in need of salvation.

When confronted with blaspheme for claiming to be a son of God Jesus points to the Torah and says, "It it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods"? Thus Jesus was not claiming to be God anymore than anyone else.

Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist viewing everyone as children of God.

Jesus, himself said that he would not judge those who hear his words but do not believe. In fact, he was supposedly saying that to people live, face-to-face. Well, gee if he didn't even expect people he was speaking to directly in person to believe him, then surely he wouldn't expect anyone 2000 years later to believe hearsay rumors about him.

So no way could Jesus be said to expect anyone to believe in him.

And like I say, Jesus also ask the Father to forgive people for they know not what they do. So there you have it. Clearly evidence that Jesus personally held the view that not knowing what you're doing is a legitimate excuse get be pardoned from judgment and be given the grace of free forgiveness.

If you attempt to hold any other position you'll have to do so by spitting in the face of Jesus and his very own words.

Jesus gave everyone a pardon who "Knows not what they do", because that was clearly his personal view of righteousness.

So even if these rumors and fables are true, Jesus would still pardon all atheists and non-Christians by his own words.

And you're not in a position to revoke the words of Jesus.

So why should anyone care what you think about it?

You don't speak for Jesus.

Ok first, when I said I'm not gonna play this nuh uh game I was refering to when you took my claims and said "no, read your bible." if that's the best comeback you might as well just stop. I prefer an answer other than nuh uh. I'm not gonna play children arguements with you. It's not that I can't refute them it's that you didn't post anything to refute.

As for you saying Jesus did not claim to be God, I will comment on that. You made a claim and therefore I can refute it. See how that works? Now, Matthew 16:15-17, Peter asks if he is the massiah, the living son of God and he affirms it. When the high priest asks him if this is true he also affirms it in Mark 14:61-62, Matthew 26:63-64, and Luke 22:70. In case you say "well son of God and son of Man are not the same as claiming to be God, there is a clearer passage in that respect. Jesus claims "I and my father are one" in John 10:24-38 (verse 30 is the statement, the rest is context).

Your next claim saying Jesus said he did not come for the righteous but the unrighteous. He is not saying they do not need salvation. In fact, he talks many times pointing out even the Pharisees who devoted their lives to following the law were not perfect. Surely even you know of that. He spat in their faces many times (figuratively). Everyone needs salvation, but he was saying he didn't come to spend all his time with the righteous but the unrighteous. Not the rich but the poor. He was helping those who needed it most.

And you're right that Jesus did not expect everyone to believe him. But he also said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through me."

If you want me to refute claims all you have to do is make them and actually back them up. Nuh uh doesn't prove anything.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: You are misquoting me in every direction.

How can I misquote you when I never quoted you?

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: I did not say man cannot be good. In fact the bible calls many of the prophets very good people. I never said man cannot be good.

Fact: Christian's believe that god is the standard for good.
Fact: Christian's also believe that no man can be good (sinless) by god's standards.

Conclusion: No man can be good.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: And how exactly does the Christian beliefs create unhappiness? In order to believe that you must exclude the millions of Christians who are happy.

Pay attention. I said happiness OR rationality. Most people simply choose the former over the latter. A rational Christian cannot be happy and a happy Christian is not rational.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: The bible actually teaches us how to be most happy. By following his commandments.

Following the commandments. Translation: stop thinking for yourself and do as I say. Which requires giving up your rational faculty.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: He wants us to live for him.

A rational person would rather live for himself.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: To get married and have children and love them. Not to worry about money. To put God first, then others, then yourself. To be honest with one another and not hurt one another.

And he wants all this irrespective of a person's own wishes. These things would make a rational person happy only if he chose those actions rationally and for his own purpose. To chose these based on god's wishes and be happy would require him to give up his rationality.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: Does lying, stealing, hurting and such create happiness? No and this is why God says don't do it.

It does seem to do so for liars, thieves and sadists.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: And you take this deserving thing completely the wrong way. We do not deserve God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness. But what do we do about it? We do our best to give back to God; not destroy ourselves. We use it in a constructive manner so we can make God proud and give him as much as we can give. This is how you interpret it. You can't include the bad without the good.

I find the word "grace" meaningless.
Deserving mercy is a contradiction in terms. If you deserve it, it isn't mercy, it is justice.
And the concept of deserving forgiveness would apply only if there was a sin in the first place. Which brings us back to your definition of human nature as inherently sinful.
Why would we need to give anything back to god when we haven't taken anything?
Why would not destroying ourselves be considered "giving back"?
What about the fact that accepting things on faith is the simplest way of destroying oneself?
Why does the constructive way of making god proud is so self-destructive?

And finally, do you say that by our good actions we become deserving of things we were previously undeserving of? That a good person deserves a place in heaven irrespective of whether he believed in god?

(February 24, 2012 at 6:26 am)chipan Wrote: As for you saying Jesus did not claim to be God, I will comment on that. You made a claim and therefore I can refute it.

Of course you can refute it in that absurdly limited way. Everything in the Bible can be refuted using the Bible itself because it's a cannon of extreme contradictions.

Every verse in the biblical cannon be refuted using another verse.

Here's a perfect example.:

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So the father judgeth no man?

Then later Jesus crys out from the cross, "Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"

Why would Jesus be asking the father to forgive people if the Father judgeeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son"

These fables are grossly contradicting at every turn of the page. So they can't be trusted to hold any truths. The Biblical cannon is a blatant untrustworthy doctrine that is riddled with endless self-contradictions.

You say:

(February 24, 2012 at 6:26 am)chipan Wrote: Your next claim saying Jesus said he did not come for the righteous but the unrighteous. He is not saying they do not need salvation. In fact, he talks many times pointing out even the Pharisees who devoted their lives to following the law were not perfect. Surely even you know of that. He spat in their faces many times (figuratively). Everyone needs salvation, but he was saying he didn't come to spend all his time with the righteous but the unrighteous. Not the rich but the poor. He was helping those who needed it most.

First off, Jesus didn't say that the Pharisees were "righteous". On the contrary he called them hypocrites.

More you say that Jesus did not spend time with the rich but with the poor because the poor are more likely to need help. But that flies in the very face of other places in this cannon when it has Jesus saying the following:

Matt.19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

According to this verse Jesus is stating that rich people are far more likely to need salvation than poor people. He also called the Pharisees hypocrites which is not good. Therefore if Jesus wanted to actually help someone he should have been spending all his time with the Pharisees since clearly they would have needed help the most.

Just the opposite of what you have suggested.

(February 24, 2012 at 6:26 am)chipan Wrote: If you want me to refute claims all you have to do is make them and actually back them up. Nuh uh doesn't prove anything.

It would be impossible for you to refute my claims by using the biblical cannon. The biblical cannon is nothing more than an endless book of lies and contradictions.

Besides, you totally avoid the most important point I've made. No doubt because you can see that it's an irrefutable point.

On the Cross Jesus said (according to these absurd myths), "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"?

Ignoring the fact that this is already a blatant contradiction because it had previously been proclaimed in this cannon the the Father judgeth no man and has committed all judgement unto the Son, this verse still flies in the face of any verses or interpretations that proclaim that it's necessary for people to either believe that Jesus was divine, or to ask him for forgiveness.

The people that Jesus forgave here did neither of these things. They did not recognize his divinity, nor did they ask him for forgiveness. Yet he forgave them anyway on the grounds that "They know not what they do".

Therefore if you are going to give this story any credibility at all you must honor the fact that Jesus easily forgave people who not only did not believe that he was divine, nor asked him for forgiveness, and they were also beating him to a pulp and nailing him to a pole but he still forgave them.

Well, if you can believe that (and if you believe in these biblical fables then you must believe this, you have no choice in the matter.

So to hold out that anyone needs to ask Jesus forgiveness for anything, or that it's important that anyone believe that Jesus was divine, is utter nonsense. Based on the very words attributed to this man.

He forgave people who did not believe he was divine, nor did they ask him for forgiveness. He forgave them based entirely on the principle that they know not what they do.

And if he forgave such violent people who were in the middle of crucifying him, then he most certainly would automatically forgive the average person who simply doesn't believe in him.

Christians insist on using Jesus as a hate tool. They use him in a hateful way by proclaiming that anyone who doesn't join and support Christianity will be rejected by Jesus and condemned (because it states that utterly contradicting nonsense other places in this cannon)

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If Jesus forgave the people who crucified him solely because they "knew not what they do", then clearly these words of John above are outright lies. Either John was lying, or Jesus was lying.

You can't have the cake and eat it too.

You can either accept that John is a liar, and that about 99.9% of the words in the bible are totally untrustworthy lies and contradictions, or you can just recognize that the whole damn thing is a superstitious fable.

That choice is up to you.


But trying to hold it up as being a 'consistent' picture whilst simultaneously demanding that Jesus hates non-believers and will condemn them to hell. Or even that he demands that people seek forgiveness before he will forgive them is utter nonsense.

This biblical cannon cannot support that kind of Christian hatred in the name of Jesus.

Christian hatred in the name of Jesus is of their own making. They necessarily need to spit in the face of Jesus in order to hold him out as the hateful monster they so desperately desire him to be.

This cannon clearly has Jesus saying, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

These people neither recognized Jesus' divinity, nor did they seek or ask for forgiveness for what they were doing.

So clearly this cannon of fables, has Jesus forgiving people freely with no strings attached.

Any Christian who claims that Jesus requires to be recognized, or that his forgiveness needs to be requires, our outright liars.

They are lying about what these fables even have to say about this man.

So as long as you continue to support Christianity, you are continuing to support lies about Jesus in a spirit of hatefulness toward non-believers.

(February 24, 2012 at 9:46 am)genkaus Wrote:

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: You are misquoting me in every direction.

How can I misquote you when I never quoted you?

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: I did not say man cannot be good. In fact the bible calls many of the prophets very good people. I never said man cannot be good.

Fact: Christian's believe that god is the standard for good.
Fact: Christian's also believe that no man can be good (sinless) by god's standards.

Conclusion: No man can be good.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: And how exactly does the Christian beliefs create unhappiness? In order to believe that you must exclude the millions of Christians who are happy.

Pay attention. I said happiness OR rationality. Most people simply choose the former over the latter. A rational Christian cannot be happy and a happy Christian is not rational.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: The bible actually teaches us how to be most happy. By following his commandments.

Following the commandments. Translation: stop thinking for yourself and do as I say. Which requires giving up your rational faculty.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: He wants us to live for him.

A rational person would rather live for himself.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: To get married and have children and love them. Not to worry about money. To put God first, then others, then yourself. To be honest with one another and not hurt one another.

And he wants all this irrespective of a person's own wishes. These things would make a rational person happy only if he chose those actions rationally and for his own purpose. To chose these based on god's wishes and be happy would require him to give up his rationality.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: Does lying, stealing, hurting and such create happiness? No and this is why God says don't do it.

It does seem to do so for liars, thieves and sadists.

(February 23, 2012 at 4:56 am)chipan Wrote: And you take this deserving thing completely the wrong way. We do not deserve God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness. But what do we do about it? We do our best to give back to God; not destroy ourselves. We use it in a constructive manner so we can make God proud and give him as much as we can give. This is how you interpret it. You can't include the bad without the good.

I find the word "grace" meaningless.
Deserving mercy is a contradiction in terms. If you deserve it, it isn't mercy, it is justice.
And the concept of deserving forgiveness would apply only if there was a sin in the first place. Which brings us back to your definition of human nature as inherently sinful.
Why would we need to give anything back to god when we haven't taken anything?
Why would not destroying ourselves be considered "giving back"?
What about the fact that accepting things on faith is the simplest way of destroying oneself?
Why does the constructive way of making god proud is so self-destructive?

And finally, do you say that by our good actions we become deserving of things we were previously undeserving of? That a good person deserves a place in heaven irrespective of whether he believed in god?

Yes you did quote me but that's besides the point. Let me rephrase it you did quote me in entirety but the problem is your interpretation of what I said.

I don't accept the definition of good you put up there. Good does not equal sinless. You can have sin and still be good. The sin itself is not good but being good does not require perfection. But yes, you are right in saying God or Jesus is the standard for living a good life. This does not mean they are interchangeable. Jesus is as good as you can get, the highest standard possible. This does not mean you need to go that far to be good. An 100% is good but a 94% is still an A thus good.

Your happiness or irrational statement doesn't make sense. Happiness itself is irrational so why are you trying to rationalize it? I am happy that I have a father in heaven who is helping me at all times in my life. I am happy that I'm going to heaven even though I don't deserve it. I'm happy that whenever I get sad or confused I always have someone to turn to. I don't know about you but to me these are very good reasons to be happy.

I did not say stop what you're thinking and do as they say. You can actually think, look, and find a reason for every commandment if it makes you feel better. God has a reason for every commandment, he is not just being arbitrary. Sin causes pain and such and just like a parent needs to say do as I say to their child and they may not understand the reason, so does God.

Living for yourself is a sad way to live. Even atheists have said don't live for yourself, live for others. A good quote from someone I don't remember who said it was "if you aren't willing to die for something, you haven't found a good reason to live." I find it more rewarding to give to people than to give to myself. You may think it irrational but gratitude from someone else is very rewarding in itself.

No, choosing to follow God does not require you to give up rationality or happiness. That's like saying you can't be happy when you are given a car, only when you get it yourself. If you raise a family because God told you so, the rewards are the same as when you make the decision on your own. You cannot take rewards from actions because you followed someone else's advice.

Sin only works out for those who don't get caught. However, it has many limitations. When someone steals all their money, they find that the money loses value. They realize money doesn't make them happy. Those who lie hurt themselves and others. Hurting does not create happiness. As you said, the thought of them being happy is irrational. I don't know how anyone can convince themselves to be happy when they've truly hurt someone else.

This second to last paragraph is funny. First you say deserving and mercy are contradictions. I completely agree. However I said we are not deserving of his mercy. You may say this is redundant but not contradictory. We haven't taken anything? God has made everything on this earth including us. This earth is imperfect and will perish. God will make a new heaven and a new earth and if we want to have a part in that we must repent for our sins or disobedience. He doesn't have to give it to you but he can and he will if you accept Christ as your savior. And no, not destroying ourselves is not considered giving back. Spreading the word of God is considered giving back. Doing the plan God has for your personal life is considered giving back. And accepting something by faith is not self destructive. As a kid, you may not understand why your mother says don't talk to strangers but it's not destructive to listen anyway. God wants to protect you, but if you don't listen to him you may hurt yourself and others. This is destructive.

I find your last paragraph funny too. First, the bible says all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God. Second, in your second paragraph you said you must be without sin to be good. So that means there is not a single person who can be good enough by your own words. This also just so happens to be exactly right. No one can be good enough to go to heaven. You want to know what I believe is the way to heaven? I believe Jesus when he said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but through me." simple as that.

---

(February 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm)Abracadabra Wrote:

(February 24, 2012 at 6:26 am)chipan Wrote: As for you saying Jesus did not claim to be God, I will comment on that. You made a claim and therefore I can refute it.

Of course you can refute it in that absurdly limited way. Everything in the Bible can be refuted using the Bible itself because it's a cannon of extreme contradictions.

Every verse in the biblical cannon be refuted using another verse.

Here's a perfect example.:

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So the father judgeth no man?

Then later Jesus crys out from the cross, "Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"

Why would Jesus be asking the father to forgive people if the Father judgeeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son"

These fables are grossly contradicting at every turn of the page. So they can't be trusted to hold any truths. The Biblical cannon is a blatant untrustworthy doctrine that is riddled with endless self-contradictions.

You say:

(February 24, 2012 at 6:26 am)chipan Wrote: Your next claim saying Jesus said he did not come for the righteous but the unrighteous. He is not saying they do not need salvation. In fact, he talks many times pointing out even the Pharisees who devoted their lives to following the law were not perfect. Surely even you know of that. He spat in their faces many times (figuratively). Everyone needs salvation, but he was saying he didn't come to spend all his time with the righteous but the unrighteous. Not the rich but the poor. He was helping those who needed it most.

First off, Jesus didn't say that the Pharisees were "righteous". On the contrary he called them hypocrites.

More you say that Jesus did not spend time with the rich but with the poor because the poor are more likely to need help. But that flies in the very face of other places in this cannon when it has Jesus saying the following:

Matt.19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

According to this verse Jesus is stating that rich people are far more likely to need salvation than poor people. He also called the Pharisees hypocrites which is not good. Therefore if Jesus wanted to actually help someone he should have been spending all his time with the Pharisees since clearly they would have needed help the most.

Just the opposite of what you have suggested.

(February 24, 2012 at 6:26 am)chipan Wrote: If you want me to refute claims all you have to do is make them and actually back them up. Nuh uh doesn't prove anything.

It would be impossible for you to refute my claims by using the biblical cannon. The biblical cannon is nothing more than an endless book of lies and contradictions.

Besides, you totally avoid the most important point I've made. No doubt because you can see that it's an irrefutable point.

On the Cross Jesus said (according to these absurd myths), "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"?

Ignoring the fact that this is already a blatant contradiction because it had previously been proclaimed in this cannon the the Father judgeth no man and has committed all judgement unto the Son, this verse still flies in the face of any verses or interpretations that proclaim that it's necessary for people to either believe that Jesus was divine, or to ask him for forgiveness.

The people that Jesus forgave here did neither of these things. They did not recognize his divinity, nor did they ask him for forgiveness. Yet he forgave them anyway on the grounds that "They know not what they do".

Therefore if you are going to give this story any credibility at all you must honor the fact that Jesus easily forgave people who not only did not believe that he was divine, nor asked him for forgiveness, and they were also beating him to a pulp and nailing him to a pole but he still forgave them.

Well, if you can believe that (and if you believe in these biblical fables then you must believe this, you have no choice in the matter.

So to hold out that anyone needs to ask Jesus forgiveness for anything, or that it's important that anyone believe that Jesus was divine, is utter nonsense. Based on the very words attributed to this man.

He forgave people who did not believe he was divine, nor did they ask him for forgiveness. He forgave them based entirely on the principle that they know not what they do.

And if he forgave such violent people who were in the middle of crucifying him, then he most certainly would automatically forgive the average person who simply doesn't believe in him.

Christians insist on using Jesus as a hate tool. They use him in a hateful way by proclaiming that anyone who doesn't join and support Christianity will be rejected by Jesus and condemned (because it states that utterly contradicting nonsense other places in this cannon)

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If Jesus forgave the people who crucified him solely because they "knew not what they do", then clearly these words of John above are outright lies. Either John was lying, or Jesus was lying.

You can't have the cake and eat it too.

You can either accept that John is a liar, and that about 99.9% of the words in the bible are totally untrustworthy lies and contradictions, or you can just recognize that the whole damn thing is a superstitious fable.

That choice is up to you.


But trying to hold it up as being a 'consistent' picture whilst simultaneously demanding that Jesus hates non-believers and will condemn them to hell. Or even that he demands that people seek forgiveness before he will forgive them is utter nonsense.

This biblical cannon cannot support that kind of Christian hatred in the name of Jesus.

Christian hatred in the name of Jesus is of their own making. They necessarily need to spit in the face of Jesus in order to hold him out as the hateful monster they so desperately desire him to be.

This cannon clearly has Jesus saying, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"

These people neither recognized Jesus' divinity, nor did they seek or ask for forgiveness for what they were doing.

So clearly this cannon of fables, has Jesus forgiving people freely with no strings attached.

Any Christian who claims that Jesus requires to be recognized, or that his forgiveness needs to be requires, our outright liars.

They are lying about what these fables even have to say about this man.

So as long as you continue to support Christianity, you are continuing to support lies about Jesus in a spirit of hatefulness toward non-believers.

First, I find it funny that when you use the bible to say Jesus was not God that's ok but when I use it to prove you wrong, you consider it absurdly limited. Either we can talk about the bible as if it were true or not but not both at the same time. If you want to quote the bible to make a claim, I will quote the bible to prove you wrong.

You are taking sentences out of the bible and trying to say they contradict one another. Read the passage, not the sentence. Then you will understand.

The creator (I wont call him god because I subscribe to no religion) created concious free will in the minds of every sentient being. This free will is used to learn and expand our knowledge of the nature of duality. Duality is not good verses evil but the complex challenges that are synonymous with free will.

Free will and the challenges that we create for ourselves in the co-creation of the universe, with the creator and all sentient beings around us simultaneously, transcend the very nature of good and evil. In the spectrum of our lives that exists through thousands of reincarnated lives, it can be the most evil actions that are overcome to create the most positive effects in our souls in the long run. Just as it can be the most positive actions that can lead to our downfall through ego to create negative effects in the long run.

The truth is that good and evil are one when viewed outside the spectrum of time. The evil of the holocaust leads to the creation of a Jewish homeland and the reinforced will to create international human rights as best we can as nations. Ghandis struggle to find freedom for his people in an independent Indian nation creates the division of that nation inducing decades of violence and war between the two peoples. I man's life of crime and hatred could potentially lead him to become a voice and spokesperson to divert many more people away from the life he has lead. A politician who's original intentions are to help people and make the world a better place can become corrupted by power and ego to wreak havoc on a nation.

What is good and evil in action and intention viewed outside of time? Ultimately its free will in the creation and completion of the challenges of positive and negative actions and intentions that leads us to the truest nature of ourselves.

(February 24, 2012 at 8:33 pm)chipan Wrote: You are taking sentences out of the bible and trying to say they contradict one another. Read the passage, not the sentence. Then you will understand.

The entire biblical cannon is one blatant contradiction after another.

You can't use the biblical fables to prove anything other than the fact that they are grossly inconsistent with their own claims.

The bible cannot be the word of any God. But that's beside the point.

The point is that even these false fables cannot be used to support the Christian hatred, even as fables.

Even as fables they clearly have Jesus proclaiming that he will forgive even people who mock him and nail him to a pole.

So it really doesn't matter what you think you can prove. You're a liar.

The only way that you can support a hateful Jesus is to spit in the face of the words attributed to Jesus even in these fables.

Whether they are true or false is irrelevant. The Jesus character in these fables does not support Christian hatred and bigotry.

So even as a fairytale it still doesn't support Christian hatred.

Christians are the creators of hatred, and Jesus cannot be used to support their hateful distortion of this religion.

(February 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)marx_2012 Wrote: The truth is that good and evil are one when viewed outside the spectrum of time. The evil of the holocaust leads to the creation of a Jewish homeland and the reinforced will to create international human rights as best we can as nations. Ghandis struggle to find freedom for his people in an independent Indian nation creates the division of that nation inducing decades of violence and war between the two peoples. I man's life of crime and hatred could potentially lead him to become a voice and spokesperson to divert many more people away from the life he has lead. A politician who's original intentions are to help people and make the world a better place can become corrupted by power and ego to wreak havoc on a nation.

Call me Mr Cynic if you like, but some inner voice is telling me that we probably aren't going to be friends. That you haven't even bothered to introduce yourself properly after three posts and two threads doesn't help, either.