Fuck Jesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini

You make some interesting points....

You shouldn't make those kinds of assumption about people over an internet connection. And to answer your questions, we're not ants of amoebas.

---

I never said we were. I'm saying that an entity that's supposedly as vastly intelligent and advanced that it could be considered "god" probably wouldn't have anything to say to us. I don't even know why it would bother to pay attention to us in the first place. We don't try to communicate to animals who have mere nerve ganglions for brains, so a hypothetical "god-like" being probably wouldn't waste it's time on us. If it's really that advanced, it wouldn't expect us to comprehend what it knows, and furthermore, what it could it hope to gain by having humans believe in it? It's hypothetically all-powerful, or at the very least extremely powerful and transcendent, so why must it bother with humans at all?

Je

Quote:

---

sus several times addresses that the laws of the old testament still hold fast, including one reference he makes toward the law about killing disobedient children. Even if this were not so, the the smoothing over of Old Testament brutality only weakens the argument the the Bible is the word of an infallible god and worth abiding by. Are you suggesting that an all-powerful, all-seeing being would actually let little mortals corrupt his message of salvation to the world? He's either incapable of stopping them, or he is malicious for letting such a travesty that has apparently caused thousands of years of misinterpretation occur.

---

Show me where Jesus says Killing disobediant children is ok..Lmao..im sure if u come up with something it will either be very unclear and open to speculation or just a very bad translation all together. You used to be a Christian like i once was!? i don't believe that statment because if you was ever a Catholic yes you can see the flaws but you MUST see the good over bad, You make out as if Christianity is evil. Evil people can claim to be Christian (they are not!) same goes with all religions.

Quote:

---

If it's really that advanced, it wouldn't expect us to comprehend what it knows, and furthermore, what it could it hope to gain by having humans believe in it? It's hypothetically all-powerful, or at the very least extremely powerful and transcendent, so why must it bother with humans at all?

---

God created Man in his form, We are his greatest creation..we are his seeds..his children..In a metaphorical sense. We create things like computer games buildings ect. When God created the universe who was there to see it? who was there to say ''wow! Props God!!'' orr (like you) ''damn, what a bastard! thats shit''. We are God's witness and our nature as human's is to praise or blame a metaphorical force that we don't understand and are not supposed to. God does not care about religion, My personal belief is if you leave the earth in a better state than it was when you entered the earth, you have done your up most best and being in certian religions or not won't matter. Jesus' message has been manipulated for other causes but this is not Jesus' intention the message of Christ was - God is our Father, We are brother's and sister's, Our Mother's are God's mother and To Love one another as He loves us. Treat people how you want to be treated and Do Not Follow Organised Religion!

Holy shit, you've given me a smorgasbord of bullshit. Where to start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*

Show me where Jesus says Killing disobediant children is ok..Lmao..im sure if u come up with something it will either be very unclear and open to speculation or just a very bad translation all together. You used to be a Christian like i once was!? i don't believe that statment because if you was ever a Catholic yes you can see the flaws but you MUST see the good over bad, You make out as if Christianity is evil. Evil people can claim to be Christian (they are not!) same goes with all religions.

---

Matthew 15
15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death
15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

This is the King James Version, the one that almost all Protestants use. If you find this translation doubtful, just check in any version "authorized" by the Caholic Church. It's still there. Undoubtedly, you'll come back and tell me that I'm interpreting it wrong. To me, this is the exact problem with the Bible and other "holy" texts. Indeed they are open to a variety of interpretations, and EVERYONE thinks theirs is right. You might take this message as Jesus rhetorically calling out the Pharisees for hypocrisy. A tribal society in a developing nation might take this as a literal command to execute children or young adults who rebel against their parents' wishes. There's nothing in the scripture to suggest which of these is the correct interpretation, so you'll still be absolutely sure your non-violent solution is right, while anyone who wishes to take it literally will be just as sure.

Now, also you claim that when I was Christian I must not have been a "real" Christian. Despite the religious bigotry in this statement, you may very well be correct, since I was never a hypocrite, swindler, liar, propaganda machine, and blind devotee like most Christian figureheads, from Saint Dominic to William Donahue. I was much closer to a Christian like Pascal or Kierkgaard who struggled endlessly to marry my religious faith with the reason and knowledge of the modern world. The main question that bugged me was how I could be certain that my Christianity was the correct religion when I could easily have been born a Jew, Hindu, Shinto, or any number of the thousands of religions on this earth. Was I to assume just because I was born into this faith it must be correct? If so, it's concievable I would feel that Hinduism was correct faith had I been born into it. The other things I could not stand about Christianity were the constant guilt trips it inflicted upon me as a teenager. The Catholic doctrines on sexuality and repentance for sin kept me in a constant state of self-loathing. When I finally abandoned it, I felt a great weight lift off my chest.

"i don't believe that statment because if you was ever a Catholic yes you can see the flaws but you MUST see the good over bad,"

How dare you tell me I "MUST" see the good over the bad? I won't deny there are many ideas of good intent in Christianity, but the bad far outweighs the good. One need only look back in history to see the horrors Christianity and other religions have unleashed upon the world. No sir, Christianity is flawed to the core because it's basic decree is that you accept God and Jesus as your creators and saviors, and suspend any kind of logic or statistic that could lead you astray from this. Secular thinking is always open to change of ideas, whereas religion is not.

Where does it say that Jesus allows the killing of disobediant children!?

How you managed to believe Jesus is saying he condones the killing of children proves how much you Want it to say this.

It sounds to me as if he was saying how wrong these so called commandments are. To your direct points about the old testament being so evil, Maybe you have a common knowledge with Jesus as he was killed for speaking against such things.

Quote:

---

Now, also you claim that when I was Christian I must not have been a "real" Christian. Despite the religious bigotry in this statement, you may very well be correct, since I was never a hypocrite, swindler, liar, propaganda machine, and blind devotee like most Christian figureheads, from Saint Dominic to William Donahue. I was much closer to a Christian like Pascal or Kierkgaard who struggled endlessly to marry my religious faith with the reason and knowledge of the modern world. The main question that bugged me was how I could be certain that my Christianity was the correct religion when I could easily have been born a Jew, Hindu, Shinto, or any number of the thousands of religions on this earth. Was I to assume just because I was born into this faith it must be correct? If so, it's concievable I would feel that Hinduism was correct faith had I been born into it. The other things I could not stand about Christianity were the constant guilt trips it inflicted upon me as a teenager. The Catholic doctrines on sexuality and repentance for sin kept me in a constant state of self-loathing. When I finally abandoned it, I felt a great weight lift off my chest.

---

I can totally agrea with this statement, apart from your idea as to what a true Christian is...What you describes was the total opposite...but i understand what you mean.

Quote:

---

How dare you tell me I "MUST" see the good over the bad? I won't deny there are many ideas of good intent in Christianity, but the bad far outweighs the good. One need only look back in history to see the horrors Christianity and other religions have unleashed upon the world. No sir, Christianity is flawed to the core because it's basic decree is that you accept God and Jesus as your creators and saviors, and suspend any kind of logic or statistic that could lead you astray from this. Secular thinking is always open to change of ideas, whereas religion is not.

---

Again you make some good points but just because people use God's name for evil deeds doesn't mean the religion is bad, I am not a Christian because i too see the illogical side into blind faith of any sort, yet i am proud to be baptised a Christian and to have certain morals based upon this religion's teachings. I do believe in God, Logically i believe not to believe all things where man has had the chance to manipulate them for his own profit. The Bible is just less than 2000 years old and in my view has expired where speculation like the quote you have used is apparent. The overall message to love one another as Jesus loved us and to repent for all wrong doings, The message of accepting Christ or perish in hell is void because Christ is not here to tell us personally and other people such as the romans have used this fear for their own profit. However True Christianity will obviously (in my view) be the correct way.

Everyone has their own beliefs and im pretty sure there is nobody who have the same beliefs as each other (deep down).

To say ''Fuck Jesus'' is pathetic when he is not to blame for the wrongs of so called Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I never said we were. I'm saying that an entity that's supposedly as vastly intelligent and advanced that it could be considered "god" probably wouldn't have anything to say to us. I don't even know why it would bother to pay attention to us in the first place. We don't try to communicate to animals who have mere nerve ganglions for brains, so a hypothetical "god-like" being probably wouldn't waste it's time on us. If it's really that advanced, it wouldn't expect us to comprehend what it knows, and furthermore, what it could it hope to gain by having humans believe in it? It's hypothetically all-powerful, or at the very least extremely powerful and transcendent, so why must it bother with humans at all?

---

I think you under estimate the intellignece of the animal kingdom.

Why would God pay attention to us? Maybe you should ask yourself why God isn't paying attention to you.

Furthmore- we can't comprehend what God knows, so how can we conclude what God wants either way in regards to what God wants us to believe in? Why even bother with those questions? That's why we're speculating now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Make~Sensi*

To say ''Fuck Jesus'' is pathetic when he is not to blame for the wrongs of so called Christianity.

---

he actively sought followers. he told them they would not enter "the kingdom of god" unless they lived their lives in accordance with his teachings. he urged them to spread this message.

fuck jesus. he was a radical jewish charlatan responsible for billions of people mindlessly following his apocalypse-driven ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolish

ok here we go. you weren't putting my point together AT ALL. i have never been entirely defending the "love your enemy" concept, fuck, i've been defending that Jesus is an intelligent individual.

if you read my example correctly, you would see Socrates disproving a point Thrasymacus offered because he proved that rulers are liable to error. being liable to error would be a temporary lack of intelligence. you said Jesus is an idiot. a stupid person has a constant lack of intelligence. thus any rule they would make would not be beneficial. however, the rule Jesus offered is beneficial to those who follow it, and therefore Jesus was not in error at that moment, and is not an idiot. if you're going to reply to me, attack the holes of logic my statement contains. i can't point them out because i wrote it. this is all i'm defending, i don't give a flying fuck about what anyone thinks about Christianty because on the internet it's the same shit all over "religion's ruining the world, I hate Jesus" blah blah blah blah.

anything written in the Bible is up to subjective speculation. Jesus wasn't saying "sit back and do nothing", he just said don't sink down to their level. i don't know if it's un-christian to harm an enemy because i'm not Christian.

and just because Socrates lived 2000 years ago doesn't mean he's "old news". philosophy is not an art that can be upgraded, it can only offer subjective points of view and debate. to assume that anything from 2000 years ago does not hold up to today's "intellectual standard" is highly ignorant. and plus, the example i was using was not Socrate's opinion, you shouldn't have even considered that example to be "dangerous" to use due to its date since it showcased nothing less than Socrates' great intelligence. that example showed him debunking this random Greek guy's opinion of what justice is. the example was relevant to my defense of Jesus' intelligence.

---

first point: "love you enemy" is not at all beneficial to those who have savage enemies. in fact, it would likely lead to the group's extinction, which is why (as i said before) christians never actually followed this "rule" (and thus became the most successful religious group of all time).

so my point is only a stupid person would advocate loving an enemy who intends to harm you or the people you love. but don't you find it ironic that the religion known for "love your brother" being at the supposed center of the faith's ideology has been one of the most pervasively violent faiths that has ever existed?

second point: when considered in historical context, socrates's intellectual achievements were tremendous. however, ideas that were novel 2000+ years ago have undergone significant modification over the years. just as newton's theory of gravity was modified and made obsolete by einstein's theory of general relativity, many of socrates' ideas have also undergone modification by more recent disciples who could analyze his work with a broader view of history. all i'm saying here is study the post-enlightenment philosophers and then tell me how applicable socrates' worldview is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

all i'm saying here is study the post-enlightenment philosophers and then tell me how applicable socrates' worldview is today.

---

well actually socrates plato and aristotle all based there philosophy on Egyptian knowledge and thought. but due to there limited intellect and world/universe view, they only got it half right.
the post enlightenment philos such as kant locke and aquinas revised many ideas that actually can be traced back to egypt.
ideas such as "same as above is below" "for everything there is a season" and the role/responsibility of Gov.

my point being that caucasian thought is fundamentaly disconected from humanism, altruism and ideals of a true community. so it takes a while for them to get with the program (4000 years?)

this is a result of living in a harsh mountain environment. white skin, hairy body, but also self serving and violent personalities, which are advantageous traits when resources are scarce. nature did not provide a bounty for them, nature threatens them, even the sun is harmful. so it is natural for them to use things like religion to slaughter and destroy.

when the muslims invaded and ruled europe they actually saved the people from disease hunger and social collapse. in most places they were welcomed with open arms.

for 1000 years the african educated and civilized the caucasian. then when they were ousted, they europeans burned the books and the bldgs then claimed the knowledge as their own......the rebirth aka renaissance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STYLEMASTERR

well actually socrates plato and aristotle all based there philosophy on Egyptian knowledge and thought. but due to there limited intellect and world/universe view, they only got it half right.
the post enlightenment philos such as kant locke and aquinas revised many ideas that actually can be traced back to egypt.
ideas such as "same as above is below" "for everything there is a season" and the role/responsibility of Gov.

my point being that caucasian thought is fundamentaly disconected from humanism, altruism and ideals of a true community. so it takes a while for them to get with the program (4000 years?)

this is a result of living in a harsh mountain environment. white skin, hairy body, but also self serving and violent personalities, which are advantageous traits when resources are scarce. nature did not provide a bounty for them, nature threatens them, even the sun is harmful. so it is natural for them to use things like religion to slaughter and destroy.

when the muslims invaded and ruled europe they actually saved the people from disease hunger and social collapse. in most places they were welcomed with open arms.

for 1000 years the african educated and civilized the caucasian. then when they were ousted, they europeans burned the books and the bldgs then claimed the knowledge as their own......the rebirth aka renaissance

---

ima ignore the mountains of silliness in this post in the interest of sticking to the topic. but i will point out that aquinas was most definitely not a post enlightenment philosopher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

first point: "love you enemy" is not at all beneficial to those who have savage enemies. in fact, it would likely lead to the group's extinction, which is why (as i said before) christians never actually followed this "rule" (and thus became the most successful religious group of all time).

so my point is only a stupid person would advocate loving an enemy who intends to harm you or the people you love. but don't you find it ironic that the religion known for "love your brother" being at the supposed center of the faith's ideology has been one of the most pervasively violent faiths that has ever existed?

second point: when considered in historical context, socrates's intellectual achievements were tremendous. however, ideas that were novel 2000+ years ago have undergone significant modification over the years. just as newton's theory of gravity was modified and made obsolete by einstein's theory of general relativity, many of socrates' ideas have also undergone modification by more recent disciples who could analyze his work with a broader view of history. all i'm saying here is study the post-enlightenment philosophers and then tell me how applicable socrates' worldview is today.

---

in a documentary i viewed the early roman christians ended up being constantly persecuted and crucified. want to know what happened to St. Peter, the father of the church? motherfucker got crucified UPSIDE DOWN. the only reason the great persecution ended (which was not met with rebellion, mind you) was because the Roman emperor Constantine dreamt of the Cross and decided to conquer in this image. his successor later instigated Christianity as the state religion, and persecution ended. after that is when Christians got all power crazy. in a strictly spiritual sense, a true Christian is doing God's work when he loves and accepts his enemy. doing God's work is beneficial to a Christian. if you're talking of a way for a certain tribe to survive in the face of adversaries hell yeah not doing shit to your enemy will fuck you over. but this is RELIGION, not politics. it is a philosophical way of fashioning your ethical world view. if you do not agree with this view, which you obviously do not, it does not mean that objectively the intellect behind the opinion is flawed.

one of the things Jesus said was the greatest blessing was to be persecuted in his name. if you die because you believe in Jesus you already have enough of a love for him to do so anyways, and you end up being greatly rewarded in heaven. Christians are heavily afterlife oriented. so if loving your savage enemy because it was Jesus' message got you killed, God isn't going to hold that against you.

and yes, it is true that socrates' ideas have been modified, you are correct. but what i quoted did not deal with socrates' opinion. it dealt with him criticizing another's opinion. we don't need to modify socrates' criticism to illustrate my point.

ok this thread could easily turn into yet another heathens vs. the god-fearing fecesfest so i wanna focus on why i think it's fair to say jesus is a fuckwad.

Quote:

---

one of the things Jesus said was the greatest blessing was to be persecuted in his name. if you die because you believe in Jesus you already have enough of a love for him to do so anyways, and you end up being greatly rewarded in heaven.

---

what kind of monumental asshole goes around telling people they should devote their lives to his cause? think about that. why couldn't jesus just live a humble life -- stay in nazareth, raise a family, teach the community. what virtuous reason did he have to travel to jerusalem to proclaim his radical jewish-based beliefs, and how exactly has the consequences of his actions been beneficial for the world?

Some people really need to take a few classes or read some books on the history of early Christianity, and hell, the Jewish relgion as well. I'm not talking about reading the goddamn Bible (which isn't even intended as a history book). Please read some historical analyses of the origins of monotheistic thought in the middle east. Or at least read some things about the origins of the gospels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah

ok this thread could easily turn into yet another heathens vs. the god-fearing fecesfest so i wanna focus on why i think it's fair to say jesus is a fuckwad.



what kind of monumental asshole goes around telling people they should devote their lives to his cause? think about that. why couldn't jesus just live a humble life -- stay in nazareth, raise a family, teach the community. what virtuous reason did he have to travel to jerusalem to proclaim his radical jewish-based beliefs, and how exactly has the consequences of his actions been beneficial for the world?

---

because Jesus, according to Christianity, is God himself. in Christianity, heaven exists. in Christianity, the world will end.

he traveled around because if he really was God, and if people actually did need to know this to enter into heaven which really existed, the only way to let them know was to go around and spread the news. if you sit in one spot and teach a few people your words will be lost in time. Jesus didn't write so his words wouldn't survive, after mucking around a lot people remembered his words and they eventually decided to write 'em down. the concept of the Messiah is rooted in Judaism and Jesus was fulfilling what was said to be the Messiah's duties. certain Jewish sects who do not believe Jesus as the messiah believe others to be the Messiah.

and in Judeo-Christian teachings there is only ONE God. therefore, there is only one right answer. Jesus was trying to give everyone the answer. in Christianity the hypothesis that other religions will lead to heaven is an unacceptable one, that is why Jesus was telling people that there is only one way to get to God. and you know what, you seem to be heavily focusing on what is written in the Gospel of John. 3/4 Gospels do not cite Jesus claiming everything he did in the Gospel of John.

the consequences of strictly Jesus' message have been beneficial to those who adhere to them correctly (think of Mother Theresa). the world, however, has felt the blow of power hungry men who have learned to control the undereducated.

;oisahg'fga'og'oaiugc