| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ben Goren" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2005 05:27:41 AM |
| Object: |
Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, we've been having something
of a running battle between Christians and atheists of late. The
Christians claim overwhelming evidence that Jesus actually
existed. The atheists point out that, no, they don't; what they
/do/ have is a bunch of hearsay mostly dating from a century after
the fact. The earliest any Christian has even tried to claim for a
document is 50 CE, almost a generation after the fact.
Amongst all the speculation, some of us atheists have pointed out
that many pieces of evidence of Jesus which absolutely must exist,
if he were real, actually don't. Josephus is a great example: he
gave whole pages to petty thieves and covered just about everybody
in the whole period and the whole area, but is perfectly
silent when it comes to Jesus. Similarly, no other first century
historian mentions Jesus, we don't have the records of the trial
or execution, no Roman spies made mention of any rabble rousers
fitting his description, and so on.
And then it hit me. We don't even have anything that Jesus himself
wrote.
There are two extremes one can take on the question. The first is
that the literal claims of the Bible are substantially true. Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was born to the Virgin Mary,
was baptized by John, performed many wondrous miracles for
thousands of witnesses, preached famous sermons to crowds of
people, was tried by Pontias Pilate, was found innocent but still
ordered executed anyway at the insistence of the local priesthood,
was crucified by Roman soldiers, was entombed, rose bodily from
the dead a few days later, continued his ministry for a while, and
finally rose bodily to Heaven where he resides to this day at the
right hand of God his Father.
The other extreme is that there was a first century Rabbi, name of
Jesus, who had some novel and inspirational sermons and, after
his death, later generations built the Jesus myth around his
teachings.
If we consider the first extreme, we can only assume that Jesus
was literate. His Father, after all, personally carved the Ten
Commandments in stone and handed them to Moses. Jesus, being
the bodily incarnation of the universe's only omnipotent and
omniscient being, would have been more than capable of writing
down accurate versions of his sermons, in stone or even steel, to
ensure that later generations would have no doubt about what he
taught. That he did not do so is proof positive that he did not
wish his teachings to be accurately taught to later generations,
preferring instead the confusion we're faced with today.
If we consider the other extreme, we, again, can only assume that
Jesus was literate, for the simple reason that all Rabbis were
literate. To suggest that Jesus wasn't literate, in the first
society where everybody who was anybody was literate, is to
suggest that he truly was a nobody. Even the last vestiges of
salience vanish from such a Jesus, for we're left with no more
semblance between the Bible and reality than but a mere name.
So, let us assume that Jesus was at least literate. Once again,
such a man /must/ have written down his grand new philosophy, for
the exact same reason that any philosopher ever has: so that he
will live on, through his words, after his death.
And, yet, there isn't even a mention in the Bible of Jesus ever
even picking up a pen. No Christian even dreams of suggesting that
Jesus was the author of anything in the Bible, and none has yet
thought to suggest that Jesus actually did write something but
that it's been lost to the ages.
Any who did would be laughed at, of course. If Jesus was real, if
he was a respected preacher (even if respected only by a
small following), his writings would have been most closely
guarded. Many copies would have been made, for the exact same
reason many copies of the later gospels were made. People would
have quoted Jesus's writings, providing further evidence that he
wrote something and what he was alleged to have written.
And the Bible, instead of saying, ``Jesus said,'' it would say,
``Jesus wrote.'' And, even if, as has happened with so many
documents, there should be some questions as to which bits and
pieces somebody might have inserted or removed in later copies,
there would nevertheless be no question of its authenticity.
But, like I said, we don't have any of that. Therefore, we can
only conclude that the Jesus of the Bible certainly didn't exist,
and neither did Rabbi Jesus.
Any Jesus who might have existed was just a dumb illiterate
schmuck whose words were so unimpressive that nobody bothered to
write them down for another generation.
Is /that/ the Jesus y'all are trying to prove really existed?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
19 Jul 2005 08:23:20 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
You don't find it remarkable in the least that His words have lived on
for some 2000 years despite the fact that He left us nothing in written
form?
Why?
Christ had nothing particularly original to say, which is all the more
surprising for someone who supposedly was omniscient. Small wonder there
was no written record. There was nothing new worth recording at the
time.
....
Regards,
Josef
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.
-- David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
21 Jul 2005 07:44:17 PM |
|
|
In article <42DCFC39.FE1D1FE1@nospam.net>, dgillesp said...
You don't find it remarkable in the least that His words have lived on
for some 2000 years despite the fact that He left us nothing in written
form?
No, I do not. There is nothing remarkable about a religion's
preserving the words attributed to its eponymous founder.
Further, you're assuming that Jesus's words are Jesus's words.
:)
Meaning, it was the early Christians, not Jesus himself, who
wrote down what later came to be called "the words of Jesus." In
light of the provenance of the gospels, we have reason to
suspect that not all the "red words" were actually traceable to
the prophet at the base of the Christian faith. Bogart never
said, "Play it again, Sam."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
22 Jul 2005 02:05:16 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote
Meaning, it was the early Christians, not Jesus himself, who
wrote down what later came to be called "the words of Jesus." In
light of the provenance of the gospels, we have reason to
suspect that not all the "red words" were actually traceable to
the prophet at the base of the Christian faith. Bogart never
said, "Play it again, Sam."
The Jesus Seminar people are real, sceptical scholars. However everything
they do assumes a historical Jesus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
22 Jul 2005 04:00:54 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 22 July 2005 3:05 pm
regniztar@btinternet.com wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote
Meaning, it was the early Christians, not Jesus himself, who
wrote down what later came to be called "the words of Jesus." In
light of the provenance of the gospels, we have reason to
suspect that not all the "red words" were actually traceable to
the prophet at the base of the Christian faith. Bogart never
said, "Play it again, Sam."
The Jesus Seminar people are real, sceptical scholars. However everything
they do assumes a historical Jesus.
You obviously haven't read the individual works of those many, many members
of the Jesus Seminar. And if you had read any of the prefaces to their
collective works you would have noted that the stipulation was -- IF JESUS
WERE HISTORICAL this is what he would have been like and therefore THESE
ARE THE THINGS HE WOULD HAVE SAID based upon our idea of him. That is a
far different thing than each member of the committee actually believing
that Jesus was historical.
Try this exercise. Take a list of each member of the Jesus Seminar. Do a
Google search for the members's name and "mythical Jesus." Note the number
of hits you will get on various works about a mythical Jesus. The number
is far greater than zero.
Now start reading some of the books and articles from the various members.
You will notice that a great many of them write all kinds of comments about
one unhistorical event in the gospels or another. In aggregate you will
discover that taken as a whole these collective works indicate NOTHING in
the gospels is a historical event. And if you actually read "The Five
Gospels", the definitive work of the Jesus Seminar, you would find only a
very few phrases that were said to be something Jesus would say, IF HE WERE
HISTORICAL.
One other thing you might note -- Every one of those members held important
positions at major seminaries and theological schools or related
departments in ivy league universities. How long do you think any of them
would continue to hold those positions if they outright stated that Jesus
was not historical? Yet if you read their individual works you would see
that much of what they write disclaims one historic event after another.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
22 Jul 2005 04:53:25 PM |
|
|
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
One other thing you might note -- Every one of those members held
important
positions at major seminaries and theological schools or related
departments in ivy league universities. How long do you think any of them
would continue to hold those positions if they outright stated that Jesus
was not historical? Yet if you read their individual works you would see
that much of what they write disclaims one historic event after another.
QED. Most of them have tenure for just that reason. Many of them are
sceptics. Yet how many have come out as Jesus Deniers?
However saying that we can be sure that there was a Jesus doesn't mean that
we can be sure any one sentence actually goes back to Jesus. Knowing that
one version must be wrong doesn't tell you which version is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
22 Jul 2005 09:16:08 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 22 July 2005 5:53 pm
regniztar@btinternet.com wrote:
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote
One other thing you might note -- Every one of those members held
important
positions at major seminaries and theological schools or related
departments in ivy league universities. How long do you think any of
them would continue to hold those positions if they outright stated that
Jesus
was not historical? Yet if you read their individual works you would see
that much of what they write disclaims one historic event after another.
QED. Most of them have tenure for just that reason. Many of them are
sceptics. Yet how many have come out as Jesus Deniers?
Define Jesus Deniers. And since they can gain access to manuscripts by
keeping their tenure, why would cut off their leg to spite their toe? And
yet you still fail to address the point.
However saying that we can be sure that there was a Jesus doesn't mean
that we can be sure any one sentence actually goes back to Jesus. Knowing
that one version must be wrong doesn't tell you which version is wrong.
Or that one fact goes back to Jesus. And if no facts, nor any saying goes
back to Jesus, the logical person will conclude that there was no Jesus, or
that wherever the name Jesus came from, it was simply drawn out of thin air
and applied to mythical, fabricated story.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
22 Jul 2005 02:09:34 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote
Meaning, it was the early Christians, not Jesus himself, who
wrote down what later came to be called "the words of Jesus." In
light of the provenance of the gospels, we have reason to
suspect that not all the "red words" were actually traceable to
the prophet at the base of the Christian faith. Bogart never
said, "Play it again, Sam."
The Jesus Seminar people are real, sceptical scholars. However everything
they do assumes a historical Jesus.
And?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
19 Jul 2005 09:27:09 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Ben Goren wrote:
So, let us assume that Jesus was at least literate. Once again,
such a man /must/ have written down his grand new philosophy, for
the exact same reason that any philosopher ever has: so that he
will live on, through his words, after his death.
You don't find it remarkable in the least that His words have lived on
for some 2000 years despite the fact that He left us nothing in written
form?
No more remarkable than some of the sayings attributed to Confucius
still being passed around by word of mouth and in fortune cookies.
It wouldn't bother me a bit if Jesus or Confucius didn't actually
existed as real human beings, instead of their "sayings"
being just a collection of "wise man sayings" collected from different
sources and countries.
Can you actually say the same?
Do you really think the creator of the universe, if there is one,
would actually do all the things recorded in the Bible, down to making
a bloody martyr out of his only begotten sun, instead of just
forgiving people without any bloodshed and animal sacrifices?
How do you explain the supposed liking of Bible god of burning animals
on the grill? Do you really think there's some invisible god up there
sniffing such things?
Is there any mention of Jesus liking the smell of BBQ meat, in the NT?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
19 Jul 2005 12:59:45 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Ben Goren wrote:
So, let us assume that Jesus was at least literate. Once again,
such a man /must/ have written down his grand new philosophy, for
the exact same reason that any philosopher ever has: so that he
will live on, through his words, after his death.
You don't find it remarkable in the least that His words have lived on
for some 2000 years despite the fact that He left us nothing in written
form?
No more remarkable than some of the sayings attributed to Confucius
still being passed around by word of mouth and in fortune cookies.
Unfortunately the only Confucius saying I remember at the moment: Man
who fart in church must sit in own pew. %)
It wouldn't bother me a bit if Jesus or Confucius didn't actually
existed as real human beings, instead of their "sayings"
being just a collection of "wise man sayings" collected from different
sources and countries.
Can you actually say the same?
Some of Jesus sayings may be as you say, but the Gospel writers included
them because they were part of early oral tradition and in accord with
their view of His spirit, general attitude and actions.
Do you really think the creator of the universe, if there is one,
would actually do all the things recorded in the Bible,
No.
down to making
a bloody martyr out of his only begotten sun, instead of just
forgiving people without any bloodshed and animal sacrifices?
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the one
who forgives. Ask any spouse who has been cheated on by his or her
mate. Jesus was no martyr but rather a revelation of pain inflicted by
wayward humanity upon its Creator by our wars, greed, deceit, hatred,
power grabbing, money grubbing, sexual infidelities, and basic
self-centeredness. Jesus suffering and death on the cross laid bare
before the whole world the suffering heart of God. Nature itself could
not bear to look upon it, but hid its eyes "from the sixth hour there
was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." Matthew 27.45 RSV
How do you explain the supposed liking of Bible god of burning animals
on the grill? Do you really think there's some invisible god up there
sniffing such things?
"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn
assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal
offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your
fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your
songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice
roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."
Amos 5.21-24 RSV
Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching
of our God, you people of Gomor'rah!
"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have
had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do
not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats." Isaiah
1.10-11 RSV
He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require
of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with
your God? Micah 6.8 RSV
Is there any mention of Jesus liking the smell of BBQ meat, in the NT?
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me,
and to finish his work. John 4.34 KJV
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Denny
liberal democrat orthodox christian
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 05:58:29 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the one
who forgives.
What price? The price of getting rid of anger? I'd say that one who
refuses to forgive pays the bigger price, by staying angry at someone
and carrying that anger around with them, instead of forgiving and
getting on with their life.
Jesus was no martyr but rather a revelation of pain inflicted by
wayward humanity upon its Creator by our wars, greed, deceit, hatred,
power grabbing, money grubbing, sexual infidelities, and basic
self-centeredness. Jesus suffering and death on the cross laid bare
before the whole world the suffering heart of God. Nature itself could
not bear to look upon it, but hid its eyes "from the sixth hour there
was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." Matthew 27.45 RSV
Did you tear up when you wrote the above?
What a sobby load of "feel sorry for God" tripe!
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 08:25:54 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the one
who forgives.
What price? The price of getting rid of anger? I'd say that one who
refuses to forgive pays the bigger price,
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him and act as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
by staying angry at someone
and carrying that anger around with them, instead of forgiving and
getting on with their life.
Jesus was no martyr but rather a revelation of pain inflicted by
wayward humanity upon its Creator by our wars, greed, deceit, hatred,
power grabbing, money grubbing, sexual infidelities, and basic
self-centeredness. Jesus suffering and death on the cross laid bare
before the whole world the suffering heart of God. Nature itself could
not bear to look upon it, but hid its eyes "from the sixth hour there
was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." Matthew 27.45 RSV
Did you tear up when you wrote the above?
What a sobby load of "feel sorry for God" tripe!
Unless, of course, it's all true. That God [if He exists] really
doesn't give a ***** about humanity and its foils and follies, would be
far more to your taste and preference? Why doesn't He just get on with
his life?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Denny
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 09:48:35 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the one
who forgives.
What price? The price of getting rid of anger? I'd say that one who
refuses to forgive pays the bigger price,
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him and act as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
Is that something that happened to you or someone you know?
How does Jesus dying a bloody death on a cross fix the problem for
you or whoever the above applies to?
Is it a matter of him being able to forgive them, but you aren't, so
he had to be whipped and beaten and crucified to death just so you can
continue to carry around your anger inside, instead of just forgiving
some other person?
by staying angry at someone and carrying that anger around with
them, instead of forgiving and getting on with their life.
Jesus was no martyr but rather a revelation of pain inflicted by
wayward humanity upon its Creator by our wars, greed, deceit, hatred,
power grabbing, money grubbing, sexual infidelities, and basic
self-centeredness. Jesus suffering and death on the cross laid bare
before the whole world the suffering heart of God. Nature itself could
not bear to look upon it, but hid its eyes "from the sixth hour there
was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." Matthew 27.45 RSV
Did you tear up when you wrote the above?
What a sobby load of "feel sorry for God" tripe!
Unless, of course, it's all true. That God [if He exists] really
doesn't give a ***** about humanity and its foils and follies, would be
far more to your taste and preference? Why doesn't He just get on with
his life?
Why don't you learn to forgive without requiring that your god had to
pretend to be dead for three days in some bloody mock sacrifice to
himself?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 04:59:04 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him and act as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
Is that something that happened to you or someone you know?
How does Jesus dying a bloody death on a cross fix the problem for
you or whoever the above applies to?
In the afterlife the sister might say that it's alright for God sitting up
in His heaven, but down below she had to work in dead end job for twenty
years because of what that brother did. God knows not what it feels like,
and no she won't forgive, so eject this brother from heaven please.
And what's God going to say to that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
21 Jul 2005 08:32:51 AM |
|
|
Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote
Denny wrote:
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him and act as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
Is that something that happened to you or someone you know?
How does Jesus dying a bloody death on a cross fix the problem for
you or whoever the above applies to?
In the afterlife the sister might say that it's alright for God sitting up
in His heaven, but down below she had to work in dead end job for twenty
years because of what that brother did. God knows not what it feels like,
and no she won't forgive, so eject this brother from heaven please.
And what's God going to say to that?
I notice that Denny hasn't answered my question... Maybe his
thinking is like you speculated above? If not, I'd like to hear what
he has to say about it.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
21 Jul 2005 01:08:43 PM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the one
who forgives.
What price? The price of getting rid of anger? I'd say that one who
refuses to forgive pays the bigger price,
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him by acting as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
Is that something that happened to you or someone you know?
Not to me but to my wife's friend.
How does Jesus dying a bloody death on a cross fix the problem for
you or whoever the above applies to?
It doesn't "fix the problem" but the door to reconciliation remains open
on the sister's side who has not allowed her brother to make her bitter
and full of hate. As a Christian she tries to follow Jesus in his
prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they
do." No, the problem isn't fixed, but the possibility of reconciliation
continues as long as one (or the other) is open to it.
Is it a matter of him being able to forgive them, but you aren't, so
he had to be whipped and beaten and crucified to death just so you can
continue to carry around your anger inside, instead of just forgiving
some other person?
I think I can truthfully say no one comes to mind that I ought to
forgive and have failed to do so. I gather you would say the same.
by staying angry at someone and carrying that anger around with
them, instead of forgiving and getting on with their life.
Except for Bush and others responsible for opening Pandora's box by
taking us to war and invading Iraq under false pretenses. With that I
am definitely not reconciled and ought not to be.
Jesus was no martyr but rather a revelation of pain inflicted by
wayward humanity upon its Creator by our wars, greed, deceit, hatred,
power grabbing, money grubbing, sexual infidelities, and basic
self-centeredness. Jesus suffering and death on the cross laid bare
before the whole world the suffering heart of God. Nature itself could
not bear to look upon it, but hid its eyes "from the sixth hour there
was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." Matthew 27.45 RSV
Did you tear up when you wrote the above?
What a sobby load of "feel sorry for God" tripe!
Unless, of course, it's all true. That God [if He exists] really
doesn't give a ***** about humanity and its foils and follies, would be
far more to your taste and preference? Why doesn't He just get on with
his life?
Why don't you learn to forgive without requiring that your god had to
pretend to be dead for three days in some bloody mock sacrifice to
himself?
It was a sacrifice "of" himself, not "to" himself.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Denny
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
21 Jul 2005 07:16:38 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
Why don't you learn to forgive without requiring that your god had to
pretend to be dead for three days in some bloody mock sacrifice to
himself?
It was a sacrifice "of" himself, not "to" himself.
According to your mythology your hero was resurrected. So just what was
the sacrifice? What does a temporary death mean to a being that has
eternal life? What does temporary suffering mean to an omnipotent deity?
Regards,
Josef
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the
gentleman who reads it.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
23 Jul 2005 07:13:33 AM |
|
|
Josef Balluch wrote:
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
...
Why don't you learn to forgive without requiring that your god had to
pretend to be dead for three days in some bloody mock sacrifice to
himself?
It was a sacrifice "of" himself, not "to" himself.
According to your mythology your hero was resurrected. So just what was
the sacrifice? What does a temporary death mean to a being that has
eternal life? What does temporary suffering mean to an omnipotent deity?
"Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world." - Blaise Pascal
Regards,
Josef
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the
gentleman who reads it.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
If true, hardly complementary of the western world where ignorance
apparently reigns supreme for the Bible continues to be the bestseller.
Denny
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
23 Jul 2005 09:00:21 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
According to your mythology your hero was resurrected. So just what was
the sacrifice? What does a temporary death mean to a being that has
eternal life? What does temporary suffering mean to an omnipotent deity?
"Jesus will be in agony until the end of the world." - Blaise Pascal
Argument by Aphorism.
The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the
gentleman who reads it.
-- Robert G. Ingersoll
If true, hardly complementary of the western world where ignorance
apparently reigns supreme for the Bible continues to be the bestseller.
Your point?
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ichimusai" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
23 Jul 2005 07:58:14 AM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
If true, hardly complementary of the western world where ignorance
apparently reigns supreme for the Bible continues to be the bestseller.
Maybe in the US, but I hear that here in Sweden the latest Harry Potter
is vastly more popular than the bible.
/Ichi
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
23 Jul 2005 10:41:16 AM |
|
|
Ichimusai wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
If true, hardly complementary of the western world where ignorance
apparently reigns supreme for the Bible continues to be the bestseller.
Maybe in the US, but I hear that here in Sweden the latest Harry Potter
is vastly more popular than the bible.
But what will be the more popular next month? And will Harry still be
around in another 10 or 20 years? The Beatles claimed to be more
popular than Jesus back in the 60's. Over the long haul the Bible
continues
as the bestseller. Pop books and fads don't have staying power.
/Ichi
Denny
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Unknown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
23 Jul 2005 12:41:23 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
Over the long haul the Bible
continues
as the bestseller. Pop books and fads don't have staying power.
Argumentum ad Numerum.
Also, the sales figures don't tell the whole story. Sales are boosted
considerably by organizations such as the Gideons, who give away vast
numbers of Bibles annually. According to Gideons, they give away more
than a million copies a week.
http://www.gideons.org/livefaq.cfm
Gideons has been around since 1899.
http://www.gideons.org/aboutusfront.html
While it is unlikely that they have always given away a million a week,
it is clear that they have produced a considerable inflation of sales
figures. And they are not alone. The International Bible Society claims
some 400 million copies distributed since their inception in 1809.
http://www.ibs.org/aboutibs/historical.php
Regards,
Josef
Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are delightful... Get your
facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ichimusai" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
24 Jul 2005 07:13:07 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Maybe in the US, but I hear that here in Sweden the latest Harry Potter
is vastly more popular than the bible.
But what will be the more popular next month?
Another book.
And will Harry still be
around in another 10 or 20 years?
Oh, definitely. People will continuously discover the books as they are
translated to new languages, people reach an age where they start
reading this kinds of books.
I have met very few people even among christians who have actually read
the entire bible. At least they act rather shocked when you show them
certain passages in it.
The Beatles claimed to be more
popular than Jesus back in the 60's. Over the long haul the Bible
continues
as the bestseller. Pop books and fads don't have staying power.
I wonder how many of those bibles that are printed are actually read by
someone.
/Ichi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
24 Jul 2005 08:14:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:13:07 +0200, Ichimusai <ichi@ichimusai.org>
wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Maybe in the US, but I hear that here in Sweden the latest Harry Potter
is vastly more popular than the bible.
But what will be the more popular next month?
Another book.
And will Harry still be
around in another 10 or 20 years?
Oh, definitely. People will continuously discover the books as they are
translated to new languages, people reach an age where they start
reading this kinds of books.
I have met very few people even among christians who have actually read
the entire bible. At least they act rather shocked when you show them
certain passages in it.
They're prepared for that - it says the devil will use the bible
against the.
Because you show them the bad bits, that makes you his agent.
That overrides the fact that the bad bits are there, in black and
white. They vanish because their preacher didn't tell them.
The Beatles claimed to be more
popular than Jesus back in the 60's. Over the long haul the Bible
continues
as the bestseller. Pop books and fads don't have staying power.
I wonder how many of those bibles that are printed are actually read by
someone.
/Ichi
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
29 Jul 2005 12:49:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:14:28 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:13:07 +0200, Ichimusai <ichi@ichimusai.org>
wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Maybe in the US, but I hear that here in Sweden the latest Harry Potter
is vastly more popular than the bible.
But what will be the more popular next month?
Another book.
And will Harry still be
around in another 10 or 20 years?
Oh, definitely. People will continuously discover the books as they are
translated to new languages, people reach an age where they start
reading this kinds of books.
I have met very few people even among christians who have actually read
the entire bible. At least they act rather shocked when you show them
certain passages in it.
They're prepared for that - it says the devil will use the bible
against the.
Because you show them the bad bits, that makes you his agent.
That overrides the fact that the bad bits are there, in black and
white. They vanish because their preacher didn't tell them.
And *they* personally aren't in the 'cross-hairs' of such 'largesse.'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "•€R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
23 Jul 2005 08:36:37 AM |
|
|
In article <dbtet7$d19$2@dos.canit.se>, Ichimusai <ichi@ichimusai.org> wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
If true, hardly complementary of the western world where ignorance
apparently reigns supreme for the Bible continues to be the bestseller.
Maybe in the US, but I hear that here in Sweden the latest Harry Potter
is vastly more popular than the bible.
• Here in the States, Harry Potter is outselling the Bible even though
the Bible definitely has more T and A.
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
21 Jul 2005 05:54:04 PM |
|
|
Please do not spam this to scj.
Susan
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:42DFE4AB.946058D0@nospam.net...
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the
one
who forgives.
What price? The price of getting rid of anger? I'd say that one who
refuses to forgive pays the bigger price,
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his
betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him by acting as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
Is that something that happened to you or someone you know?
Not to me but to my wife's friend.
How does Jesus dying a bloody death on a cross fix the problem for
you or whoever the above applies to?
It doesn't "fix the problem" but the door to reconciliation remains open
on the sister's side who has not allowed her brother to make her bitter
and full of hate. As a Christian she tries to follow Jesus in his
prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they
do." No, the problem isn't fixed, but the possibility of reconciliation
continues as long as one (or the other) is open to it.
Is it a matter of him being able to forgive them, but you aren't, so
he had to be whipped and beaten and crucified to death just so you can
continue to carry around your anger inside, instead of just forgiving
some other person?
I think I can truthfully say no one comes to mind that I ought to
forgive and have failed to do so. I gather you would say the same.
by staying angry at someone and carrying that anger around with
them, instead of forgiving and getting on with their life.
Except for Bush and others responsible for opening Pandora's box by
taking us to war and invading Iraq under false pretenses. With that I
am definitely not reconciled and ought not to be.
Jesus was no martyr but rather a revelation of pain inflicted by
wayward humanity upon its Creator by our wars, greed, deceit, hatred,
power grabbing, money grubbing, sexual infidelities, and basic
self-centeredness. Jesus suffering and death on the cross laid bare
before the whole world the suffering heart of God. Nature itself
could
not bear to look upon it, but hid its eyes "from the sixth hour there
was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour." Matthew 27.45
RSV
Did you tear up when you wrote the above?
What a sobby load of "feel sorry for God" tripe!
Unless, of course, it's all true. That God [if He exists] really
doesn't give a ***** about humanity and its foils and follies, would be
far more to your taste and preference? Why doesn't He just get on with
his life?
Why don't you learn to forgive without requiring that your god had to
pretend to be dead for three days in some bloody mock sacrifice to
himself?
It was a sacrifice "of" himself, not "to" himself.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Denny
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
22 Jul 2005 12:23:15 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
Real forgiveness is not dirt cheap and a price is always paid by the one
who forgives.
What price? The price of getting rid of anger? I'd say that one who
refuses to forgive pays the bigger price,
Doesn't that assume forgiveness is strictly a one way street? Say, two
persons are alienated and one seeks to be reconciled but the other
doesn't wish it. How about a son who manages to persuade his senile
parent to will the family estate exclusively to himself. He values
property and finances far more than a good relationship with his own
flesh and blood. His sister is hurt and angry, of course, but more
than the injustice of it all, she loves her brother, misses him and
wants a reconciliation. But any real reconciliation can only come when
the greedy brother decides to make things right and share the estate.
His sister can, of course, decide to write him off and get on with her
life, so to speak. But if she truly loves him, the pain of his betrayal
will be with her the rest of her life. To "forgive" him by acting as
though nothing happened only makes bad matters even worse.
Is that something that happened to you or someone you know?
Not to me but to my wife's friend.
How does Jesus dying a bloody death on a cross fix the problem for
you or whoever the above applies to?
It doesn't "fix the problem" but the door to reconciliation remains open
on the sister's side who has not allowed her brother to make her bitter
and full of hate.
As a Christian she tries to follow Jesus in his prayer on the cross, "Father,
forgive them for they know not what they do." No, the problem isn't fixed,
but the possibility of reconciliation continues as long as one (or the other)
is open to it.
So Jesus is needed for the "possibility" of reconciliation somehow,
and without his bloody death on a cross, there's no way that the
sister would ever forgive her brother for being a greedy *****?
Is it a matter of him being able to forgive them, but you aren't, so
he had to be whipped and beaten and crucified to death just so you can
continue to carry around your anger inside, instead of just forgiving
some other person?
I think I can truthfully say no one comes to mind that I ought to
forgive and have failed to do so. I gather you would say the same.
Yes, I would. Being one who doesn't carry grudges or hatred because I
realize what a waste of time and mental energy they are, I learned to
do away with them, without the need for some pretended god who died a
bloody death on a stick in order to appease himself or his
make-believe father in the sky.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
19 Jul 2005 12:19:20 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
So, let us assume that Jesus was at least literate. Once again,
such a man /must/ have written down his grand new philosophy,
for the exact same reason that any philosopher ever has: so
that he will live on, through his words, after his death.
You don't find it remarkable in the least that His words have
lived on for some 2000 years despite the fact that He left us
nothing in written form?
No more remarkable than I find the fact that words of other
fictional prophets had survived for about that long by the time
Jesus wasn't born, and survive to this day.
And, yet, there isn't even a mention in the Bible of Jesus
ever even picking up a pen. No Christian even dreams of
suggesting that Jesus was the author of anything in the Bible,
and none has yet thought to suggest that Jesus actually did
write something but that it's been lost to the ages.
Fact is, He didn't come to write a book. He came rather to
create a community of faith which began with His mother, 12
disciples, and other of His contemporaries as well. No, He
didn't leave us a book, but instead He left us with one, holy,
catholic and apostolic Church found in every corner of the
world. It was left to his followers to do the writing required
in order to share His life, teachings, death and resurrection
with the world. More books and other literature have been
written about Jesus Christ and His significance than about any
other human being who has ever lived, either before or since.
So you're saying he was a blitheringly incompetent administrator
who couldn't even be bothered to poorfread what his own disciples
were writing about him. Or that he cared so little for
his teachings that he didn't give a damn if anybody quoted
him correctly or not. Or that, the Bible being hopelessly
self-contradictory and full of laughably invalidated claims, the
Holy Spirit is perfectly incapable of protecting its believers
from falling victim to the most blatant of lies.
Yeah, that's quite a ringing endorsement of your god, Denny.
Incompetent, (a)pathetic, or impotent. Choices, choices, choices.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 08:59:21 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Yeah, that's quite a ringing endorsement of your god, Denny.
Incompetent, (a)pathetic, or impotent. Choices, choices, choices.
OR
Omnicompetent, empathetic and omnipotent.
"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation
prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." -
Friedrich Nietzsche
Ah, the power to interpret in support of and agreement with one's
choices--applies not only to believers, but to non-believers as well?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Denny
liberal democrat orthodox christian
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 01:33:57 PM |
|
|
dgillesp wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
dgillesp wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Yeah, that's quite a ringing endorsement of your god, Denny.
Incompetent, (a)pathetic, or impotent. Choices, choices,
choices.
OR
Omnicompetent, empathetic and omnipotent.
"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever
interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power
and not truth." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Ah, the power to interpret in support of and agreement
with one's choices--applies not only to believers, but to
non-believers as well?
Physician, heal thyself.
Start by actually reading what Nietzsche wrote, for
one--/Zarathustra/ would be an excellent starting place--and by
learning that it's the interpretations which must be adjusted to
fit the observations. Not the other way 'round.
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "solitaire" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus: History's Dumbest God |
20 Jul 2005 07:34:20 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, we've been having something
of a running battle between Christians and atheists of late.
.... which does not belong in soc.history.ancient.
I DON'T GIVE A FLYING ***** IF HE EXISTED OR NOT! TAKE THIS CRAP OUT OF SHA!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
