Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[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.

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

Stories like those told about mythical Jesus were around previously in Egyptian and Greek mythology, resurrection, healing etc. Agrippa 1 and 2 built many theatres in Galilee and especially near Nazareth, the 'Herods' were really into plays and culture. The Egyptian and Greek myths would have been played at those theatres, so it wouldn't have been hard to distort those into a story about the poor persecuted Jewish bankers, put to death by the Romans. Note that 'War & Peace' is nearly as long as the Old and New Testament, and that was written by only one man.

Also, at the time, there were two Jewish uprisings and I believe the stories and plays were adjusted to pacify the Jews, by introducing a pacifist in the plays, a person that would not be violent and would turn the other cheek. This major trait of Jesus, that we have all been taught, has served extremely well by indoctrinating the plebs into a pacifist non aggressive mode, people (named subjects, surfs, plebs etc.) that are much easier to control by a government.

Until, of course, the government needs soldiers, then the Church stirs up hatred against the unholy enemy, this method of inciting holy hatred was still being used in the First and Second World Wars.

[Drich]

Isn't God sure of his personal sense of righteousness? Doesn't he consider himself the end all be all of righteousness?

yuup.
That is why I refer to it as an absolute standard.

How can morality be connected to man, and not god?

Because 'Man's Morality' is an attempt to rewrite God righteousness to accept the sin he wants to incorperate into his life/soceity.

for example: Is it moral to deny Homosexuals the right to be married? I would say it is immoral from this soceity's standard to deny gay people the right to marry.
However according to the Righteous standard of God we are not allow to marry homosexuals.

If he truly has a perfect standard of righteousness, isn't that morality at its' core?

You have it backwards. God's righteousness is usally at the core of Man's morality.

Excluding the fact that you just threw in there that mankinds' morality merely serves to marginalize sin thus allowing us to live life with a clear conscience--just what are you saying, that athiests deny god so they can sin without feeling guilty?

If the shoe fits. Without God their's no accountablity. no judgement, no recokening for the things the bible identifies as sin.

Don't you also sin,

All the time.

and not feel guilty

Not guilt, remorse.

because you atone for it later in secession?

Attonement has been made at the cross once and for all. The only thing I can do is accept what has already been done for me.

How are you any different than us?

I have accepted God's attonement. That's what attonement is. It is being free from the Laws of God or the 'morality' of man as our only means to find righteousness. (the state of being in which to be deemed worthy before God.)

God definitely believes himself the arbiter or righteousness. The one and only, the alpha and omega--that which is right is right because he says so--just as you've said in past posts.

Romans 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Isaiah 57:12 I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall not profit thee.

See if this were me what you have done here would have been considered preaching as I did not openly ask for these verses.. But preach it!!

How can something be an abomination in his eyes if he does not have his own sense of righteousness, thus in your very definition of morality, his own law of morality? The fact that he is the ultimate Judge of everything, assumes that he is the arbiter of morality, just as I said.

Not morality. Righteousness. Again Righteousness is the unchanging standard of God. To which all must give an account. "Morality" rather Man's Morality is an ever changing standard altered to suit the level of sin a given generation/culture wishes to indulage in. As what is 'moral' in this generation was most certainly considered evil or even criminal just a few generations past.

Question: If god is perfect, and made us in his image, how then is it that we came out imperfect and sinners?

We didn't did we. For Adam and Eve lived in the Garden for an undisclosed amount of time. We chose to sin over remaining in direct contact with God.

Wouldn't that indicate that he made us imperfectly, on purpose?

He made us with the ablity to choose from the beginning. For the Tree of knoweledge was placed in the Garden before man.

Which brings me to a giant hole in your theory that athiests have posed for longer than I've been alive: If merely being born offends your god, then there's something wrong with your god, because that means the tables have been turned against your favor from the beginning and thus is unrectifyable to the basic nature of god, who is supposed to be the end all be all of justice. If he was, then things would be just.

I hate to shoot down your long standing tradition with one simple question proving it to be than a weaak straw man.. But Here goes anyway, where in the bible does it say being born is an offence to God?

Then to follow up with your answer:
Where is orginal sin taught (with all of the doctrine and subsequent conclusions your question is based on) in the bible? (I am looking for book, chapter and verse please. Not an appeal to some guy in italy who wears funny hats)

Things are not just. Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong or good from evil, until they ate the fruit. That means they can't be held responsible for their actions, not having knowledge of the good and evil or the repurcussions of choosing either.

Why do you assume this? They knew of life and death, they knew eat the fruit was death. They ate and died.

In gods own words, this is the reason why babies are not held responsible for sin, for they cannot know what they're doing.

Book Chapter and verse?

Genesis 3: 22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

What does this have to do with anything? This is proof that Adam and Eve 'died.' For the were orginally allowed to eat of any tree in the Garden (Meaning the tree of life was on the menu before they ate of the tree of knoweledge.) The only reason they would need to eat of this tree again is if they were no longer immortal.

Evil is defined as something “that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction”.

Perhaps in this generations lexicon. The bible seems to have different understanding of the word. For according to scripture it is possiable to have "Evil with in one's heart, without actually doing anything physical." Which makes Evil the willful longing or intention to be outside the expressed will of God. And Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Not all sin is evil but all evil is indeed sin.

Well according to the punishment your god deals out in the following passages as the result of tasting the apple, I'd conclude that he is the evil one, thus not real in the way you believe him to be.

which is not hard to do when one's 'morality' is taylored to justify the life one wants to live. again if the shoe fits..
If one subscribes to popular morality then one can bend it to make God immoral, thus making it one's moral obligation to distance themselves from God. No God= a preceived freedom to live how he/she wants. (so long as it fall under the 'moral' clause he or she creates for themselves.)

will be back again..

---

Isaiah 45: 7
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

Oooo Exegesis of Scripture my Fav! (Especially with one willing to use it to defend their morality!!)
The Hebrew word for Evil is ra' The majority of the time in the King James it is translated Evil. But ra' has a much broader meaning than our or rather your understanding of the word evil:
1) bad, evil

a) bad, disagreeable, malignant

b) bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)

c) evil, displeasing

d) bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)

e) bad (of value)

f) worse than, worst (comparison)

g) sad, unhappy

h) evil (hurtful)

i) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)

j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

1) in general, of persons, of thoughts

2) deeds, actions

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...7451&t=KJV

Now placed in it's proper context in Isaiah 45 Isaiah is drawing paralells or comparing oppsites. Barnes' Notes, a Bible commentary, has this helpful additional comment: "The parallelism here shows that this is not to be understood in the sense of all evil, but of that which is the opposite of peace and prosperity. That is, God directs judgments, disappointments, trials, and calamities; he has power to suffer the mad passions of people to rage, and to afflict nations with war; he presides over adverse as well as prosperous events. The passage does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God."

Question: How can the bible say that god is love, if he is inherently evil?

I'm sorry where did you establish god was Evil and from what authority? That said The bible does not say God Loves all equally. God's love is conditional, something else you can not seem to comperhend.

missluckie26 said:
Quote:You on the other hand, telling me that eternal fire waits for your equals for non-violent acts such as loving a man as a man--is just you plain out again, taking away our civil liberties as a living, breathing, free-willed human being and is equally as wrong.

Drich said:
Show me where I have said this.

You uphold the bible, thus you cannot pick and choose what parts of it you follow. The bible says this, you need not say it outright for me to know that you uphold its' tenents. Unless you are cherry picking?

Then show me where the bible says this in relation to your examples.

Are you willing to face the question, if god knows what will happen before it happens, how then can he justify letting it happen?

Choice and consenquence. If God interveened everytime we made a bad choice, and never had to face the consenquence of our actions then we would not have the ablity to choose.

Simple enough question, I'd like a simple enough answer if you're up for it.

Simple question simple answer what else you got?

I simply misread one of your quotes.

which one?

Catfish summed up well in reference to someone else,
(which is what being intellectually honest really is. not misrepresenting someone else's position like you did).Don't misrepresent me if you want to have a fair debate. I never have said that murder is all right, and I'd appreciate further discussion to reflect my true beliefs. Your beliefs have been made clear, which is why I have opened conversation with you on them.

I like catfish. Mainly fried, but grilled is ok too.

Also, would you honestly say to me if I came in your church asking why it's okay for god to kill innocents, "what if I raped you and your family on a weekly basis, would you feel murder is justified?" I think not. What's more, is I'd appreciate it if you choose to continue conversing with me, to move on to a different analogy as it's very touchy subject for me and my entire family, thx.

No need as you answered my question. That not all taking of human life is considered murder.

[Mystical]

Also, would you honestly say to me if I came in your church asking why it's okay for god to kill innocents, "what if I raped you and your family on a weekly basis, would you feel murder is justified?" I think not. What's more, is I'd appreciate it if you choose to continue conversing with me, to move on to a different analogy as it's very touchy subject for me and my entire family, thx.

No need as you answered my question. That not all taking of human life is considered murder.
[/quote]

OH MY GOD what is wrong with you? I say no murder in any context at any time is justified, and you say I still condone human life being taken as not being murder? WHAT THE FUCK dude. I'm done. Every single 'answer' you seem to have, isn't an answer, to anything. And I seriously did want to have those questions answered, else I wouldn't bother asking them. I don't do it for fun. I've exhaustively searched for the answers to these very questions, for at least 6mo online--years, before that, within myself.
Not to mention your answers in this recent post seem to indicate that you don't give a shit about answering anything in them, and that it probably took you five minutes to write down your "thoughts".
I have been talking to you because I hoped that you might actually help me concrete my own beliefs on the subject--I truly want to know what god has to say about my questions, if he existed. If there are any to be found. But you can't even do that effectively! Talking to you has been a huge fucking waste of time, thanks for that.

YOU

ME


Either way my head's gettin bashed in, so way to go: I secede this unintelligible conversation and bow down to your idiocy. Enough of my time has been wasted on you.

[Ryantology]

OH MY GOD what is wrong with you?

When you are arguing with Drich, you are arguing with psychological imbalance personified. He is immune to reason.

All you need to know about him is that he is a complete slave to his fictional God (something he willingly admits) and does not recognize human morality as valid. He is, in other words, a brainwashed psychopath.

[Violet]

When you are arguing with Drich, you are arguing with psychological imbalance personified. He is immune to reason.

I too am immune to the dark seductive power of the raisin

[Ryantology]

When you are arguing with Drich, you are arguing with psychological imbalance personified. He is immune to reason.

I too am immune to the dark seductive power of the raisin

[Drich]

When you are arguing with Drich, you are arguing with psychological imbalance personified. He is immune to reason.

I too am immune to the dark seductive power of the raisin

I'm not a fan of prunes either..

[Cyberman]

You missed a trick there, Drich. What you should have said was "I'm not a regular fan of prunes."

[Drich]

You missed a trick there, Drich. What you should have said was "I'm not a regular fan of prunes."

I have much to learn from the Pun Master..

[Mystical]

You missed a trick there, Drich. What you should have said was "I'm not a regular fan of prunes."

I have much to learn from the Pun Master..

I love how you take so lightly, something that I see as serious. Serves to show just how conceited you truly are.
And no I'm not talking about raisins or prunes, I know you were thinking it