Official debate with local pastor.

[Abracadabra]

Hey guys my friend's pastor is going to attempt saving my soul through logic and reason

That proves he's an asshole right there.

Christian salvation is based on grace, not on logic and reason.

If it were based on logic and reason Christians would all be doomed.

---

It would not do me any good, I have a mirror that can't be broken and I would not want it to be, that mirror is Christ a mirror of love that keeps one striving to do better.

That basic psychology can be said of almost any religion. Many Buddhists would say the same thing about Buddha. A Taoist might say the same thing about Lao Tzu. A Wiccan the Moon Goddess, a Greek Apollo or Athena, etc.

The problem with the Christian making Jesus into "The Christ" is that he's not only been nailed to the cross, but he's also been nailed to the God of Abraham and the highly immoral bigotry and chauvinism of the Old Testament.

Jesus has also been contaminated by the teachings of Paul, etc.

Christianity can't be just about Jesus. It necessarily has to be about people like Paul and all the immoral crap of the Old Testament as well.

Jesus is nothing on his own. He has no legs to stand on. He's nothing if not standing upon the shoulders of the God of Abraham. A highly bigoted, hateful, jealous, cruel, unrighteous, and clearly immoral fictitious God.

Jesus carries tons of bigoted baggage that's forced onto him by the very proclamation that he must be held up as "The Christ".

As a stand alone sage, his moral teachings aren't bad. But then again, as a stand-alone sage he was basically teaching the very same moral values as Buddha, Lao Tzu, and many others.

Jesus had nothing new or unique to offer in terms of moral conduct. Everything he taught along those lines had already been taught centuries before he was ever born by the Eastern Mystics.

I'm personally totally convinced that Jesus was indeed a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who actually tried to reject the highly immoral teachings of the fables contained in the Torah, and was unfortunately crucified for his views.

That's what gave rise to the rumors of the New Testament. The very Pharisees who were behind his crucifixion are probably the same people who wrote those rumors (or twisted them into what they have become).

First they nailed him to a pole. Then, when as a dead man he became a martyr in the eyes of the public they had to do something so they jumped on rumors that he might have been the "messiah" and used those to create the New Testament firmly nailing Jesus onto the Torah as the "Son of the God of Abraham", the very immoral fables that Jesus himself tried so hard to renounce.

And here you are supporting those Pharisees who nailed Jesus first to a pole, and then to the Torah. The very teachings that Jesus himself rejected.

---

Hey guys my friend's pastor is going to attempt saving my soul through logic and reason but he also has an advantage over me. He is 40 something and has read almost every bible I can think of except which of those that are forbidden. I can easily unsettle most christian's using logic to point out their faults but this is kinda like the biggest wolf in the pack. He actually invited me to lunch so we can talk then in private about religion and god. It would really help me out if you guys could give me some advice or a few spears to throw at him. haha

By the way, what's the debate going to be about?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't debate anyone concerning whether or not a "supernatural spiritual entity" can or can't exist.

That would be an utterly stupid debate to even enter into. That kind of debate can never be decided. I would even go so far as confess to this preach openly that I personally have no problem with spiritual pictures of reality such as Eastern Mysticism.

Of course, that's me. If you want to argue that there can not be a spiritual essence to reality, that's your call.

The only thing I would be willing to debate the preach on is the Bible. But then again, unlike your situation for me at 62 years old with plenty of knowledge of the Bible, it would be the 40 year old preacher who would be the one who is at a great disadvantage.

I would tear up the biblical picture so firmly that he would be forced to leave with nothing but confetti where there once was a book of fables.



He wouldn't stand a chance.

[Zen Badger]

Wrong, Christ walks with me daily, and He helps me deal with all things good or bad, if you could only know how wonderful and comforting.

[Abracadabra]

It would really help me out if you guys could give me some advice or a few spears to throw at him. haha

Ok, if you're going to be debating the biblical fables specifically I can give you some ammunition.

My first advice would be to steer clear of any arguments of whether or not a 'God concept' could possibly exist. All those arguments do is distract from the real issue which should be the fables themselves.

So moving on to the fables,...

Begin at the beginning. Don't allow the preacher to begin with "Christ", or an assumption of the existence of Satan, or the assumption of "original sin" or anything like that.

Force him to start the debate at the beginning of the fables, and work through them in that order.

What's the foundation of the religion? The foundation is the supposed 'Fall from Grace'. So that's the place to begin.

Should we believe the tale of the "fall from grace"?

That's the first question you'd want to debate.

Well, what does that tale claim? It claims that God told Adam and Even not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Well, the first oxymoron there is that if Adam and Eve didn't already know the difference between good and evil, how could they know that to disobey God would be considered to be 'evil'?

Planting a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of a garden that contains two individuals who do not already know the difference and asking them not to eat from it would be a really stupid thing for a God to do in the first place.

Moreover, if Adam and Evil did not already possess the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating this fruit then they could have only done this in a state of pure innocence, and not out of a desire to choose 'evil' over 'goodness' (a concept that they supposedly couldn't even yet understand)

So the whole tale starts out with an oxymoron.

So what happens next? An evil serpent comes along and suggests to these innocent kids that it's ok to eat the fruit from this tree after all. So innocence prevails and the curious kids decided to find out for themselves because they know have conflicting information.

So they eat the fruit and suddenly realize that they are naked which is 'evil' and they grab fig leaves to cover their nakedness. The irony here is that if being naked was evil then they had clearly been doing something evil all along and didn't even know it. (but that's a trial detail, don't get hung up on that)

Here's the real meat,...

What does this supposedly all-wise God then do to solve this problem?

Well, he turns to the serpent and curses the serpent as follows:

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life

First, did this supposedly all-wise solution solve the problem?

Well, no it didn't. In fact, according to Christianity this evil demon is still running around beguiling people to this very day.

So not only was this solution to the problem violent and stupid, but it didn't even solve the problem. This God failed to solve his problem by making this serpent crawl on his belly and eat dust.

Then God turns to the woman and curses her with a violent punishment:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

So here God curses the women with greatly multiples sorrow in conception and childbirth, and gives a green-light for Adam to become a male-chauvinistic pig who rules over his wife.

A very violent and crude (even cruel) curse, and again. Did this solve the problem?

Well, clearly it didn't solve anything. Supposedly this curse upon Eve applies to all women, not just Eve. And evidently it has absolutely no effect at all, because according to these fables all humans continued to sin constantly after this including the women.

So once again, this God's violent curses and punishments didn't solve anything. So once again this God failed to solve the problem at hand.

~~~~

Personally I'm done right there. The whole rest of the religion is based upon these absurdly idiotic tales of a "Fall from Grace" where a supposedly all-wise God delves out outrageously idiotic punishments that don't even begin to solve the problems at hand.

So what's the point in even going any further. The foundational story is already utterly absurd and does not portray a truly all-wise God. All these amount to are stories of a truly stupid God who thinks that cursing people with mean and cruel punishments could be a viable solution.

So I'm don't already. It's futile to even bother considering any more of these utterly absurd stories.

~~~~~

But just in case, the preacher isn't convinced let's fast forward to the Great Flood.

Since God's original handling of the problem of sin failed, every thought of every human became evil to where it was an utterly hopeless situation.

One question there would be to ask how a supposedly all-wise God could let things get so far out of control in the first place? Why didn't he jump in earlier and nip this in the bud?

Secondly, how does he handle this out-of-control situation?

Well according to these fables God selects a few sinners to save (remember all men are sinners so Noah and his family must necessarily be sinners). He has them build a boat to save the animal kingdom from a great flood, and he destroys the rest of mankind with a flood.

That's how this unchanging God deals with sinners. (remember this God must have an unchanging character if he is to be dependable and trustworthy, so God cannot change in character)

Question? Did this crude and violent solution solve the problem? No it did not. Clearly sin continued to be a major problem even after the flood.

So once again, this supposedly all-wise God failed to come up with a solution that solved anything.

Where do we go from here? Well, let's finally jump into the New Testament and address Christianity specifically.

Supposedly mankind was still sinning out of control. So God tries a totally new approach. He supposedly sends his only begotten son born of a sinner-woman via her cursed sorrowful childbirth. (Mary had to be a sinner, because all have sinned without exception)

So Jesus was born of a sinner through cursed sorrowful childbirth.

What does Jesus do? Well, he renouncing the judging of others (which the previous God of Abraham had commanded people do to). After all how could people stone sinners to death if they didn't first judge them to be sinners?

So Jesus rejects the idea of judging others, and he also renouncing the stoning of sinners by sinners (i.e. by any human being because all men and women are sinners)

What else does Jesus do? He renouncing the seeking of revenge. The God of Abraham taught people to seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But Jesus renounced that and taught people to forgive others and to turn the other cheek instead of seeking revenge.

So here Jesus is renouncing everything that the God of Abraham stood for.

What do the rumors of the New Testament proclaim about Jesus? Well they proclaim that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the sins of mankind and give them an opportunity for grace and everlasting life.

Is this supposed to be the same God who handles sin by drowning everyone out?

That's not a change in character? It sure is. It's a blatant about face. It's an extreme contradiction to the character of the God of Abraham.

Therefore it makes absolute no sense to give these rumors that Jesus was the "Christ" any consideration at all.

~~~~

I could go on and on and on, with endless absurdities and contradictions associated with these fables and superstitious rumors, but I'm tired of typing.

So good luck with your debate!

Hope you get some ideas from some of the absurdities that I've pointed to.

[Godscreated]

It would not do me any good, I have a mirror that can't be broken and I would not want it to be, that mirror is Christ a mirror of love that keeps one striving to do better.

That basic psychology can be said of almost any religion. Many Buddhists would say the same thing about Buddha. A Taoist might say the same thing about Lao Tzu. A Wiccan the Moon Goddess, a Greek Apollo or Athena, etc.

The problem with the Christian making Jesus into "The Christ" is that he's not only been nailed to the cross, but he's also been nailed to the God of Abraham and the highly immoral bigotry and chauvinism of the Old Testament.

Jesus has also been contaminated by the teachings of Paul, etc.

Christianity can't be just about Jesus. It necessarily has to be about people like Paul and all the immoral crap of the Old Testament as well.

Jesus is nothing on his own. He has no legs to stand on. He's nothing if not standing upon the shoulders of the God of Abraham. A highly bigoted, hateful, jealous, cruel, unrighteous, and clearly immoral fictitious God.

Jesus carries tons of bigoted baggage that's forced onto him by the very proclamation that he must be held up as "The Christ".

As a stand alone sage, his moral teachings aren't bad. But then again, as a stand-alone sage he was basically teaching the very same moral values as Buddha, Lao Tzu, and many others.

Jesus had nothing new or unique to offer in terms of moral conduct. Everything he taught along those lines had already been taught centuries before he was ever born by the Eastern Mystics.

I'm personally totally convinced that Jesus was indeed a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who actually tried to reject the highly immoral teachings of the fables contained in the Torah, and was unfortunately crucified for his views.

That's what gave rise to the rumors of the New Testament. The very Pharisees who were behind his crucifixion are probably the same people who wrote those rumors (or twisted them into what they have become).

First they nailed him to a pole. Then, when as a dead man he became a martyr in the eyes of the public they had to do something so they jumped on rumors that he might have been the "messiah" and used those to create the New Testament firmly nailing Jesus onto the Torah as the "Son of the God of Abraham", the very immoral fables that Jesus himself tried so hard to renounce.

And here you are supporting those Pharisees who nailed Jesus first to a pole, and then to the Torah. The very teachings that Jesus himself rejected.

Jesus never rejected the Torah, the fact is He used the Torah and the rest of the OT to show He is the Messiah. The Pharisee murdered Christ because He exposed them for the frauds they were, they taught the Torah but did not live their lives by what it truly taught. So you see I do not support the Pharisees who murdered my Christ. By the way you have some wild imagination there, you would be good at writing fairy tales, as for your ability to interpret the scriptures you greatly lack any ability to do so.

[Abracadabra]

Jesus never rejected the Torah, the fact is He used the Torah and the rest of the OT to show He is the Messiah.

That's not true at all.

Jesus rejected the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinners. That's a direct refutation of the teachings of the Torah that had God instructing people to judge others and stone sinners to death.

Jesus rejected the seeking of revenge and taught people to forgive and turn the other cheek instead. That's a direct refutation of the teachings of the Torah that had God teaching people that seeking revenge is ok as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

It's crystal clear that Jesus had nothing to do with the ficticious God of Abraham.

Jesus also could not have been the messiah of the Torah because the Torah prophecy clearly states that the promised messiah would be handed the throne of King David by God himself.

Jesus was never made the king of the Jews. So the rumors that he was the messiah are clearly false even in accordance with these very fables.

The Jews recognized that obvious fact immediately and they never fell for the Christian lies from day one.

[Godscreated]

Jesus never rejected the Torah, the fact is He used the Torah and the rest of the OT to show He is the Messiah.

That's not true at all.

Jesus rejected the judging of others and the stoning to death of sinners. That's a direct refutation of the teachings of the Torah that had God instructing people to judge others and stone sinners to death.

Jesus rejected the seeking of revenge and taught people to forgive and turn the other cheek instead. That's a direct refutation of the teachings of the Torah that had God teaching people that seeking revenge is ok as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

It's crystal clear that Jesus had nothing to do with the ficticious God of Abraham.

Jesus also could not have been the messiah of the Torah because the Torah prophecy clearly states that the promised messiah would be handed the throne of King David by God himself.

Jesus was never made the king of the Jews. So the rumors that he was the messiah are clearly false even in accordance with these very fables.

The Jews recognized that obvious fact immediately and they never fell for the Christian lies from day one.

You left some out, Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law. Jesus used the Psalms and many other OT passages to show the Jewish people He was the One testified about by the prophets and even King David himself. Even His murder by His enemies was described in the OT. Also the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews was prophesied in the OT.

[Abracadabra]

You left some out, Jesus said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law. Jesus used the Psalms and many other OT passages to show the Jewish people He was the One testified about by the prophets and even King David himself. Even His murder by His enemies was described in the OT. Also the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews was prophesied in the OT.

None of that matters. The prophecies state that the messiah will be handed the throne of King David by God himself. Clearly that never happened.

Besides many of those so-called "prophesies" were not made by Jesus even according to the authors of the New Testament. On the contrary most of their arguments are commentary by the authors themselves. Moreover, since not a single solitary word of the New Testament was actually written by Jesus, clearly none of it can be trusted to be his words. It's all hearsay rumors, every last word of it.

The bible does not even contain a single solitary word written by Jesus.

The Jews were right to reject these false rumors. Even if their original religion was indeed fictitious. Those very scriptures commanded them to stone heathens like Jesus to death.

Jesus was a heathen by the standards of the Old Testament. He spoke out against the laws of the God of Abraham and replaced them with totally different laws.

Even you recognize that these fables have Jesus proclaiming that he did not come to change the laws, yet that's precisely what he did. So Jesus himself would need to be a liar in order for these fables to be true.

There's no way of saving Jesus from these false fables. At least not as a demigod born of a union between a God and and mortal woman.

The only you can possible "save Jesus" is to recognize that he was most likely a quite mortal Jewish man, most likely a pantheistic-minded man who was highly educated in Mahayana Buddhism and tried to teach his fellow brothers better morals that had been taught to them by the Torah.

That's about the only way that Jesus can be "saved".

Not saved as a "God", but saved in terms of being a respectable person.

There is no way to save Jesus as a God. Even if he was the demigod son of Mary, he would have still rejected the very teachings of the God of Abraham. So he either would have been a very rebellious demigod, or the original God would have had to have undergone a major change in character in deciding to send his son to totally change his prior instructions to mankind.

It simply can't be made to work as a coherent picture of a supposedly sane God. That can indeed be totally dismissed.

Jesus could not have been a demigod of the God of Abraham. It's just not even remotely possible. Both Jesus and the God of Abraham would need to be totally screwed up if that were the case.

Recognizing that if he existed at all, he was most likely a mortal man who objected to the immoral teachings of the Torah is the only thing that can "save" Jesus from being an absolute jerk.

[Minimalist]

The Pharisee murdered Christ because

Before 70 AD the temple/religious establishment was in the hands of the Sadducees not the Pharisees. By the time your silly gospel shit was written out the raison d'etre of the Sadducees ( the temple) no longer existed and they faded from history leaving only the pharisees to serve as the bad example in your little holy fairy tale.

I see your history is as shitty as your theology.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

That's not true at all.[quote]

Actually,it kind of is true,depending on what part(s) of the NT you choose to believe/emphasise. Christians have such a splendid range of choices.

(Verse 17) 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
(Verse 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
(Verse 19) Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-19 - NKJV).

[Abracadabra]

The Pharisee murdered Christ because

Before 70 AD the temple/religious establishment was in the hands of the Sadducees not the Pharisees. By the time your silly gospel shit was written out the raison d'etre of the Sadducees ( the temple) no longer existed and they faded from history leaving only the pharisees to serve as the bad example in your little holy fairy tale.

I see your history is as shitty as your theology.

I didn't mean to imply that they were the same individuals. I simply meant that they were people who were carrying on a similar dogma and needed to gain support for it. They would still be 'scribes' for sure. And if they were religious authoritarians, then they were also "Pharisees" by the meaning of the term. And clearly they would have needed to be both "scribes" and "Pharisees" if they were managing a religious doctrine that nails Jesus to the Torah.

However, I must confess, that as an ex-Christian I do tend to favor theories that "save face" for Jesus.

Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist not only makes perfect historical sense, and is in perfect alignment with his moral teachings. But it also explains why he so thoroughly disagreed with the immoral teachings of the Torah.

It also saves face for the man. Being a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva who was actually trying to renounce the horrible immoral teachings of the Torah is highly admirable.

I personally feel that this make far more sense than the theories that he was a totally made up work of fiction. Although, I must confess that I can't rule that out either.

None the less, as a demigod son of the God of Abraham he would need to be pretty darn despicable. He would basically need to inherit the same egotistical jealous hateful traits of the God of Abraham.

It's clear, even from the New Testament rumors, that the guy who gave rise to these rumors did not agree with the immoral teachings of the Torah. In fact, at the end of the story when he supposedly cries out "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" (assuming he actually said this at all), this would only go to show that even Jesus didn't agree with condemning people who weren't fully aware of what they were doing.

So that flies in the very face of what Christianity has become. Christianity has become a religion where people are condemned for merely not believing in Jesus. Yet, in these very fables they have Jesus requesting that God the Father should forgive people who are clearly doing horrible things simply because they don't fully understand what they are doing.

It's just the most inconsistent self-contradicting fable ever created.

It can't be the "Word" of some supposedly all-wise all-perfect God because it's utter nonsense and riddled with contradictions. Therefore it must be something else.

My theory that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is highly compatible with history on many levels. Mahayana Buddhism was at it's peak right around the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. A Bodhisattva would have taught and behaved precisely how Jesus was said to have taught and behaved. And even according to the New Testament rumors, Jesus clearly did not even agree with the teachings of the Torah. On the contrary he taught moral values far more in line with Mahayana Buddhism. In fact, Jesus didn't even add anything new to that. It's a carbon copy of the moral values that were being taught by Mahayana Buddhism even before Jesus was said to have lived.

So it's a workable theory to "save" Jesus as a decent man.

As the demigod son of the God of Abraham there would be no reason at all to respect him. On the contrary, he either would have had to have been rebelling against his "father" or his father would have had to have had a major change of heart (i.e. a total change of character). But that flies in the face of the idea that this God is supposed to be stable, dependable and trustworthy.

So Jesus as a demigod makes no sense at all.

He was either a misunderstood Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, or he was a totally made up work of fiction. Take your choice. I chose the former simply because it seems far more probable to me based on the New Testament rumors