I agree, saying that Jesus was "spitting in the face of God", gives a very wrong impression. That's not what he was doing at all.
What he was doing was rejecting the Torah as the "Word of God".
There's not doubt that Jesus believed in "God", but he clearly didn't believe in the Torah as the verbatim word of God.
As a Mahayana Buddhist he would definitely believe in "God". The Mahayana Buddhist were quite spiritual. Not at all like today's modern Zen Buddhists who are almost glorified atheists.
So Jesus as a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist would definitely believe in God.
In fact, I see Jesus being very much like myself. I too believe in God. I just don't believe in the Torah. So I have no problem with Jesus' view of things. He probably felt about God much the same that that I do.
I agree with what you're saying here. The blame for theses things cannot be placed solely on the Hebrew Scriptures for sure.
However, from my perspective that's totally irrelevant. The Hebrew scriptures loaned themselves for supporting these kinds of horrendous atrocities and superstitions. It's states right in these scriptures "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".
That's arms people with ammunition to use these scriptures for these kind of horrors in the "Name of God".
In these scriptures Jesus supposedly made himself known to Saul (a Christian Persecutor) and converted him into Paul (a saintly believer).
Well, if Jesus truly is a magical being who can intervene like this, then IMHO there would be absolutely no excuse for Jesus to not have appeared before the two Christian Monks who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum and stop them dead in their tracks at the moment they started writing it. He could have turned them into saints like Paul as well.
Why should Jesus just sit back and allow people to create books and movements that would use his name to torture and burn women to death for the next 300 years?
You can make excuses for this all you want. But in my humble opinion any divine being who is capable of intervening in human affairs (and is claimed to have done so many times in a religious doctrine) yet fails to stop atrocities being done "In His Name", would be totally untrustworthy, and quite frankly despicable, IMHO.
Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist would have been a mortal man. He could not stop such future atrocities being done in his name. That's understandable.
But Jesus as an all-powerful God who can easily intervene in the lives of men to change their course (as he clearly did in the case of Paul), that would be utterly despicable.
You're basically asking me to believe that a supposedly divine being would just sit back and allow horrible atrocities to be carried out under the
authority of his name, for hundreds of years without setting people straight that he does not approve of this?
That is inexcusable, IMHO. I could never worship, love, or even respect such an ignorant deity.
The only sane conclusion for me, is that no such intervening God exists.
It's really that simple.
I personally have no problem with that. If Jesus was a mortal man like I suspect then he would have had normal human views of things. I can easily see Jesus as a Jew valuing some of the things in the Torah as being valid accounts of spiritual messages from the divine, whilst simultaneously rejecting other parts of the text as being the contamination of mortal men.
Many religious people view their sacred scriptures in this way.
Did Jesus tell anyone that they must accept the entire Torah as the verbatim word of God?
No he did not!
Moreover, if you point to the verse were he supposedly says that not one jot nor one tittle of the law shall pass from law to mean that we should accept everything in the entire Torah, then this would fly in the very face of the things that he changed.
So it can't be made to work without extreme contradictions.
The authors of the New Testament were the original "Christians". They are the people who desperately try to make a case that Jesus was "The Christ".
There are no "Christians" alive today. All that exist today are followers and believes in the original "Christians". Yes, they too call themselves "Christians" but they are writing the religion. They have no say in what the religion says at all.
Christianity (i.e. the doctrine created by the original Christians), used all sorts of claims to try to convince people that Jesus was "The Christ" and that anyone who refuses to accept this as Fact with be condemned to hell.
~~~~
Having said that, the followers of these scriptures who also proclaim to be Christians do indeed "use" these scriptures to try to make Jesus into what they want him to be all the time.
You say that Christians (meaning believers in these fables) don't "use" anything, and that it's just a belief for them.
But that's not true at all. Not in the least.
Modern day Christians "use" these scriptures all the time in extreme efforts to back up their views and renounce the view of others.
Like I say, I can go through these scriptures and find a lot of verses where Jesus does not require that anyone believe in him, and places where he has forgiven people who did not believe in him nor asked him for any forgiveness.
Yet these "Christians" will argue with me tooth-and-nail to the death demanding that anyone who refuses to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will surely be condemned.
Don't tell me that Christian proselytizers and evangelists don't "use" these scriptures in an attempt to belittle those who either refuse to believe in the scriptures, or even refuse to accept the interpretations of that particular proselytizer or evangelists.
Often times Christians can be quite obnoxious and relentless in their undying passion to make Jesus out to be a monster who hates non-believers.
It can truly make a non-Christian want to literally barf.
This is the arrogance of Christianity and especially the arrogance of modern day followers of this cult.
You say that the only reason that homosexuals might feel 'guilty' is become they are somehow naturally feeling guilty about things. That's hogwash and absolutely arrogance on your part to even suggest such nonsense.
There are many homosexual couples who have absolutely no feelings of guilt associate with they LOVE for each other. They are just constantly being harassed by a society who keep proclaiming that they are doing something horrible. And that is going to make them feel horrible simply because they have to live among so many people who support their bigotry in the name of God.
And again, you had just proclaimed that Christians don't "use" anything. But here you are yourself attempting to "use" these scriptures to proclaim that homosexuality is wrong in the Eyes of God, and that if homosexuals feel guilty about anything it's only because they are doing something wrong.
That is precisely the kind of ignorance that Christians are infamous for.
If you want to proclaim that it's merely a 'belief'. Then by all means believe it for yourself. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God than don't participate in homosexual activities. It's that simple.
However, if you are doing to go running around showing your holy book in the face of homosexuals proclaiming that God hates homosexuality and that homosexuality is a sin. Then you most certainly are "using" these scriptures to harass other people and belittle them in the name of "God".
There are actually Christian Churches that have been founded by homosexual couples, or a single homosexually individual. They have reasons and interpretations of their own that allow for same-gender love. And they argue that no loving God would frown upon love in any form.
So for you to argue with these people requires you to not only "use" these scriptures as a weapon against them, but to also argue that
your interpretations of the scriptures should trump theirs!
It becomes nothing but personal arrogance. Not unlike the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum who argued that the scriptures support the burning of witches.
It's really not any different at all.
It's just yet another horror story in the long line of horror stories that these superstitious fables cause.
You are a hypocrite clearly. Without a doubt.
Perhaps you can't see it, and you may even believe that you are doing this in a state of complete innocence and perhaps you are because you can't see what you are doing.
But as I had just pointed out, if you want to proclaim that you have a 'beleif' fine! If you believe that God frowns upon homosexuality then don't become a homosexual, and be glad that you weren't naturally born with those desires.
However, if you're going to point at other people and say, "Well they should be felling guilty, clearly they are sinning", then you have taken it beyond a personal belief and you are now using it to judge others.
And that is where the hypocrisy comes into play.
You proclaim that you aren't 'using' it, and that you merely believe in it.
Well if that's true, then when I tell you that it's clear to me that by these scriptures that Jesus forgives people who do not believe in him and even mock him and nail him to a pole.
Then who are you to argue with that?
After all, you have your 'beliefs' and I have mine.
This is why you are a hypocrite. You claim to merely have a personal belief, and that you don't "use" these scriptures to judge others, yet you do!
That's hypocritical.
I personally don't care what you believe. What I object to is when you try to push your beliefs onto me and proclaim that my beliefs have no merit.
Baloney.
If you want to believe that Jesus is a monster who hates homosexuals and will condemn everyone who refuses to worship him as Lord and Savior, fine.
I have no problem with that at all.
All I ask in return is that you accept that I believe that Jesus was far a mortal man who didn't even ask anyone to worship him as a "Lord".
Then we can finally live in peace.
IMHO Jesus never attempted to establish any such authority. The authors who wrote these rumors are the ones who tried to push that authority onto Jesus.
Besides, there was no fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus was never handed the throne of David to become the King of the Jews as prophecy demands.
The Christian nonsense is that Jesus rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and not sits at the right-hand of God as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
But that's not "fulfillment of prophesy". That's just an utterly asinine superstitious fable that pretends that some prophesy was "fulfilled".
There does not exist any evidence that any prophecy had ever been fulfilled. What Christians claim to be "fulfillment of prophesy" is nothing more than superstitious myths themselves.
Totally unimpressive.
Jesus was clever I'll grant you that much. However your observation here doesn't help matter. According to the Bible all men are sinners. If God had only wanted people who are without sin to stone sinners to death, then that could never be possible even in the Old Testament.
So even if I accept your apologetics on this I would still be stuck with having to believe that at one God was ok with sinners stoning sinners to death and now he has CHANGED that law.
Moreover, why would Jesus even bother saying that it would be ok for a sinless person to cast the first stone if no such creatures exist?
Why even have a God asking people to stone sinners to death at all if there is no one qualified to carry out this commandment?
You need to realize that the stoning of sinners to death was supposedly God's idea in the first place!
Does God want us to stone sinners to death or not? Can he make up his mind?
So your apologetic argument here is meaningless to me. It's totally empty and devoid of any rational sense.
Either this God wants us to stone sinners to death or he doesn't.
My view that Jesus was a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist is viable. Jesus was simply trying to find ways to get around these stupid immoral teachings of the Torah without appearing to be "changing the laws", and I'll grant you that Jesus was a very clever wise sage. He succeeded in doing this convincingly. He even convinced YOU!
But as the son of the God of Abraham it can't be made to make sense. Either God wants us to stone sinners to death or he doesn't. Saying that only those without sin should obey this command is itself a contradiction.
Moreover, it also implies that all of humanity should be stoned to death. Since all of humanity are sinners.
It's just an utterly stupid tale if taken literally. It's clearly nothing more than absurd fables to begin with.
That is the standard apologetic argument.
But that fails completely in this case.
Why does it fail. Well it should be blatantly obvious.
If fails because in this case Jesus was being accused of blaspheme for having proclaimed that he and the Father are one.
His
defense to this charge was to point to the Psalms where it states that "Ye are Gods".
Well, if Jesus himself knew that this was just a reference to mortal judges and prefects, etc, then he would also know that it would not be a viable
defense against charges of blaspheme.
The mere context in which Jesus was using this as a defense shows clearly that he was attempting to proclaim that anyone can claim divinity and that this should not be viewed as blaspheme.
The standard apologetic excuse that you gave doesn't address the true context of how Jesus was using this to
defend against charges of blaspheme.
So, no, I don't buy into those apologetic arguments. They totally miss the point of why Jesus was pointing to the verse in the first place.
My hypothesis that Jesus was a pantheistic Buddhist holds.
The apologist's arguments flunk. They totally fail to recognize and acknowledge why Jesus was pointing to that verse in the first place.
Sure you can point to that verse and proclaim "I hold this to be an absolute truth that no other verse can trump!"
But I can do the same thing with "Forgive them father for they know not what they do!"
I can point to that verse and proclaim "I hold this to be an absolute truth that no other verse can trump!"
And so we're dead even! Shouting at each other using totally conflicting verses from a totally absurd myth.
In fact, I would argue that I should WIN this battle because I'm holding up Jesus "Last Words".
Therefore I have a stronger position that no other verses should trump Jesus "Last Words".
~~~~
Moreover, the verse you point to doesn't demand that a person recognize Jesus or appeal to him or anything like that. All it does is state that no one can get to the father but through him.
Well duh?
If he later than proclaims that he forgives people when they know not what they are doing, then clearly he will forgive them for this reason, and they can still get to the father "Through Him".
So my position does not violate yours anyway!
And your position does not require anything of anyone. All it states is that Jesus will be the one who decides in the end.
If Jesus wants to welcome atheists and homosexuals into heaven based on his legal loophole that they know not what they do, then who are you to demand that he doesn't?
You're arguments to try to force Jesus to become an unforgiving monster simply don't hold.
At the end of the story he proclaims that he will indeed forgive people if they merely don't realize that what they are doing is wrong. And clearly based on these scriptures they can be mocking him, beating him to a pulp, and even nailing him to a pole, and he'll STILL FORGIVE THEM!
That's what these fables ultimately proclaim about Jesus!
So even if they are true, Jesus can still give his grace totally unconditionally to atheists, non-believers, and even homosexuals if he so desires. Just like he gave his grace unconditionally to the Roman heathens who nailed him to the pole.
I'm sticking with the words of Stephen Weinberg on this one.
"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things."
No, Christianity is not responsible for good people.
On the contrary there are millions of good people who are not Christians.
I'm renouncing the claims of the New Testament as themselves being the product of very early "Christian fundamentalists".
I really don't care about the modern day followers. Other than the fact that the modern day followers continue to hold this bull shit up as "The Word of God".
No, it's not the word of any God. I've proven that this is the case time and time again. These are just fables made up be a sick male-chauvinistic society.
It's really not an 'attack' on anyone. I'm just trying to get people to wise up and quite using these sick fables to support religious bigotry in the name of a bigoted Jealous God.
It's a seriously world-wide problem. It's not just Christianity. I renounce all of the Abrahamic religions equally. They are all speading the same type of religious bigotry in the name of a Jealous God.
It's not just Christianity.
Yes, I do hate to see hatred being spread in the pretense that it is supported by a supposedly all-loving all-benevolent God.
There is nothing all-loving, or all-benevolent about these Abrahamic religions. They create religious bigotries and hatred in the name of "God".
The Muslims hate the Christians in the name of this God.
The Christians hate the Muslims in the name of this God.
The Sunnis hate the Shias in the name of this God.
The Shias hate the Sunnis in the name of this God.
The Catholics hate the Protestants in the name of this God.
The Protestants hate the Catholics in the name of this God.
Everybody hates the Jews in the name of this God.
They all hate atheists in the name of this God.
It's just the epitome of hatred that is being passed off in the name of this God.
Join our version of the religion or you're turning against God!
It's the most hate-producing religion that ever plagued mankind.
Again, the words of Steven Weinberg:
"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things."
Stupid people doing stupid things on their own is one thing. They can only gain so much support for that without appealing to the notion of a God being on their side.
Do you think there would be any massive movements on planet earth that have the size and power of things like Christianity or Islam if they were based on nothing other than someone's personal views?
No way! The only reason these things get so out of hand is because they are being held out in the name of GOD!
Would you be so passionate about supporting Christianity if it was just Joe Blow's personal opinions?
No, of course you wouldn't.
The only reason you support it is because you are convinced that it represents that "Word of God"
You can justify whatever you like about these fables.
It's crystal clear to me that the whole way through these fables this supposedly all-wise all-benevolent God attempts to solve all his problems using extremely crude and violent means.
In every case I can personally offer a far more intelligent way to deal with the problem. Why should I be so much wiser than a supposedly all-wise God.
Therefore these fable necessarily have to be false.
That's crystal clear to me.
Moreover, all I need to do is ask myself a very simple question:
"Am I the willful enemy of all that is good and righteous?"
No, that is absolutely false for certain.
Well, then it makes no sense for be to believe in a religion that proclaims that this is precisely what I must be!
No, sorry about that. I stand for everything that is good and righteous.
Yet this religion would have me condemned for this.
It's clearly a false fable.
There can be no doubt about it.