'All the Christians on these forums seem to ever do is use their religion to belittle all other religions'



a very interesting opinion,,,

Jesus never became the king of the Jews.

ok, Im only quoting the bible as a reference for my answer to the previous post that there was no jewish religion in the time of jesus

My apologies.

I recant that precisely as written.

Please change the word "all" to "often".

Poor choice of words on my part.

ty

I don't put much stock in Bible translations. The term "Jews" or "King of the Jews" may have been changed or mistranslated in the many rewrites of the Bible.

U r right, Jenniebean!!

The latest translation includes the following glossary:

"King of the Jews" = "top notch criminal lawyer", gets hookers out of getting stoned, and raises from the dead by vigorously suing the Almighty for wrongful dismissal from the land of the living, later forcing said Almighty in the famous "**** vs. King" case to adopt him as His son.

"Mary Magdalene" = "crack prostitute", as uttered by the Babylonian three wise men of the east in their beautiful but completely incomprehensible language. It means "the deep throat girl who does five shekel bee jays", and this was left out of the abridged edition, but the full edition of Babylonian Dictionary the meaning of the expression is further expounded to include "she who spits the residue in the river of Hades where the fountain of life and the freezing of death's fire combine to make dollar-store watches that first lose some of the little sticks in their digital diagrams of numbers, then a big demon falls out of them, then they finally and completely run out of jews before you reach your tent by midnight". John, nineteen-eighty-four.

"Pilate" = in pre-hysteric Armenian it means "body-twister and nutritional counsellor", and its figurative meaning is "woo magi". He invented the banana daquiri. He believes a man should let be lived, for eternal life hides in the peels of ground grinds of the olives that fell out off of the olive trees of Olive Oyl.

"Judas Iscariot" = this means, in ancient Aramean, "a badazzh mofo" he sells his soul for thirty silver pieces, buys a piece and dooms mankind. He is the epitome of human stupidity, as every christian blames him as a badazzh mofo, but without him there would have been no salvation for mankind, for Christ would not have been Chrucified, and consequently the original sin would have been not eradicated by converting it in one fluid motion to Christianity.

I am fully aware that this entry will get erased by the mod, and I will be punished for it by selective banning, and my soul will burn in eternal hell fire for ever and ever amen... but still, it was well worth it to put the above into words. "For the beginning consisted of the Word which Was god, or in other words the mod, which was flesh and Jewish, and from that moment on God could only say Jesus, when He meant to say "flesh" or "word". You can take my word for it."

"athiests are angry and bitter" this statement is utterly idiotic. If we're ever angry it's because whoever is confronting us with their holier than thou attitude makes us.

Markum, speak for yourself.

With a girlfriend like that babe on your arms, even the most rabid and most bitter atheist would turn to be a benevolent pacifist and sweet, at least bitter sweet. I say even Nietzsche would have let God continue to live, should Nietzsche have had a gf like you do.

Now wait just a minute. Can I be an atheist and also have a holier than thou attitude?

What sort of a question is that, Beanie?

Are you out of your mind?

Of course you can!!!

You can be anything you want.

If you buy the gibberish passed as thoughts by Cowboy, then you could become god even. (You can't get any holier than that.*) If you want to become god, the only thing you have to do, is follow the recipe provided by Cowboy:

From a certain point onward make sure your word is flesh, it is the word "word", and you can only say the word "Jesus" which means fresh meat, and be sure to eat all your vegetables.

(*) ... And still stay an atheist. How many times have you heard from your parents, educators, and other scum, "it's about time you started to believe in yourself, young lady." Which presupposes that at the time you did not believe in yourself -- hence, it is possible that you can become an atheist god.

My sentiments, Ms.Harmony, too. Christians are not nearly as vicious on the forums as atheists are. Christians are (mostly) well-behaved persons with pleasant personalities, or else complete imbecils whose mastery of reality, thought, language, and anything outside or inside of that is severely challenged.

No, I found no Christians belligerent here recently. However, this is not mutual; atheists are having a field day decrying religion by any means, incl. but not limited to blasphemy, alcohol abuse, anger, and winning medium-sized prize money on the state lotteries.

WORD.




Well here is what I got from my parents:

Mom: "You are never going to amount to anything. When are you going to move out?"

DAD: Men are only after one thing, so don't trust any of them.

So okay, I am an atheist God because I am God and I exist but I don't believe in myself.

This will be the new jeanniebean cult movement.

That is a very serious question truly. And I've asked this question quite often as well.

Was it God's plan to have Jesus crucified to pay for the sins of mankind or not?

If so, then Judas Iscariot, and every single person who partook in the inciting and carrying out the crucifixion was actually doing the WILL of God.

And if this wasn't "God's plan" then the main thesis of the religion falls apart.

So with all due respect for anyone who might become offended by personal views and opinions, I personally don't see where this story can possibly be made to make any sense in terms of Jesus being sent by God to be the sacrificial lamb to pay for the salvation of mankind.

I personally just don't see where that idea can be justified at all.

Therefore, I conclude that there must be alternative explanations for these stories. And those alternative explanations cannot support the sacrificial lamb theories of Christianity.

I see only two possible explanations:

1. The whole story is a fictional scam and Jesus never even existed at all.

2. There exists some other practical explanation for how these inconsistent and totally unsupportable rumors came to be.

I personally feel that the second option can be explained by simply recognizing that Jesus was very likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. This idea makes very practical sense within the context of the time period, as well as within the context of the behavior and moral values that have been attributed to the teachings of Jesus.

It is my sincere view and opinion that this scenario makes far more sense than the idea that people like Judas Iscariot betrayed the son of God, when it was supposedly God's plan to have Jesus crucified to pay for the salvation of mankind in the first place.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. People like Judas Iscariot would have been an active part of God's plan if we're supposed to accept the orthodox Christian view of these stories.

So these stories contain extreme problems, IMHO.

Far beyond anything that I'm personally willing to accept as being reasonable. And from my point of view, these kinds of problems exist throughout the entire cannon of stories, and not merely in this one tiny detail. We find these kinds of contradictions and absurdities on almost ever page of the entire cannon.

(Disclaimer)

This post has been the personal sincere view of a human being who is being accused of refusing to accept the sacrificial lamb of God by the authors of these ancient stories. Stories that do not appear to be reasonable, IMHO. Nor do they even appear to be salvageable even if I wanted to believe in them. Which I confess that I do not. Why would I want to believe in such utterly sick and demented stories in the first place? I'm certainly not about to blindly accept these stories on pure faith. I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be motivated to do such a thing.

Did you miss the post where a certain militant Christian claimed atheists 'don't think', insinuating they are easily-led fools?


-Kerry O.

For the most part most Christians are nice people and polite. The few who are zealots give the others a bad rap.

I do understand why atheists are touchy though. Most have been silent for too long, and sometimes the assumption that everyone should believe in God, or the expectation that people should be Christian tends to wear on them after a while.

Religion is so much a part of society, it is everywhere. The question "Why don't you believe in God? (--what's the matter with you)? is annoying. Also the question: "...if you're not a Christian, then what faith are you?" is also annoying. That question is only for the purpose of making a personal judgement about you and a person's belief is nobody's business unless they want to tell you.

When I decline an invitation to Church, and the person asks me what religion I practice or what I believe or why I'm not a Christian I want to say "That's a personal matter." Its really none of their business and they don't need to know.

As are most atheists and Unbelievers in general. But let it be known that you're an Unbeliever or not a Christian, and right away the militant Christians start ramping up for a battle to the death with the forces of Satan, aka "YOU".

I mean really, I have NEVER knocked on a stranger's door to try to convert them to Unbelief, and upon finding them to be a Christian, started talking down to them as if they were stupid, Communists or axe murderers intent on taking away peoples' civil rights. On the other hand, someone like myself living in one of the 'Bible belts' can probably give you all kinds of stories where this kind of narcissism comes to one's front door all too frequently.

I'd bet that if one went door to door trying to convert people to Satanism, they'd get arrested at the very least, probably physically harmed.




I've taken to just telling them I'm a Secular Humanist if they really press. If they give me attitude, I just shrug, say "It's a free country" and let them watch my back as I walk away.


-Kerry O.

Abra, my word of wisdom to you: do not try to make any sense of any dogma. Christian or other. That will only drive you nuts, and then you WILL need a religion to regain your sensibility.

Religion is either to be believed, since you can't do much else with logical impossibilities, but ignore them, and that is the first and foremost tenet of any religion.

If you can't believe a relgion's teachings, the next best thing you can do with it is make fun of it by exposing its stupid, utterly imbecilic teachings.

In my opinion there is not much else you can do with religion, if you are serious about it. Certainly NEVER try to make sense of a system of religious beliefs.

Some outside people like to use religion to influence others, or to make money -- like the pope in the Vatican -- but these people are not serious at all about religion, they use it for their outside ulterior motives.

You can say that TV evangelists are both in it for the money and for the faith, they are serious about both, but I say people are complex. In the foregoing above I gave you distilled, distinct ways of dealing with religion, but they need not stay distinct and separate. People are complex structures, they can do more than one stream of completely opposing religious pracices, without as much as blinking an eye.

I do not judge them for that. (This is what separates me from the righteous.) I accept their differentness, and if I make fun of them it's not them, the believers, the people, that I ridicule, but their religion.

I guess I just don't think its a conversation worth having if it makes people act in a justified manner to abuse each other.

I actually hold a totally different view on that point.

All religions are not as hopeless as the Abrahamic religions and Greek mythology.

I no longer attempt to make any sense out of Christianity. There was a time in my life decades ago when I did try and discovered that it's simply not possible. Had I realized at the time that Isaac Newton had already done that I wouldn't have wasted so much time on it. But unfortunately I didn't learn of his results until long after I had already dismissed it myself.

I'm not attempting to make sense of out anymore. I simply try to point out the absurdities to anyone who might be interested. I certainly wish that people had pointed these thing out to me when I was a very young child.

As for various other religions and spiritual philosophies I'm afraid that I can't agree with you that they are hopeless to understand, on the contrary I find much truth and wisdom in the spiritual philosophies of Eastern Mysticism. At least as much credibility as I have ever found in the cutting edge scientific theories of physics.

Not to say that Eastern Mysticism can prove its ultimate speculation to every question asked, but then neither can science.

I've also learned to recognize "religions" such as Wicca, and the Faery Teachings of Northern Europe as deeply abstract metaphors and archetypal spiritual philosophies that when accepted as the abstract systems they truly are they do not required a belief in anything anymore concrete than Eastern Mysticism. They are simply a more romantic way of expressing the same ideals.

At least this is my own personal view, every Wiccan, and Faery lover (two different groups by the way) may not view their spiritual philosophies from my perspective. But I'm just saying that the "sense" that those traditions make, can be quite abstract and not concrete or dogmatic is a person allows it to be so.

When I view the Christian New Testament, I ask the very reasonable question:

Did an actual man spark these rumors? If so, what might he have genuinely be trying to teach?

I believe you already know the conclusions that I've come to. And from my point of view, those conclusion are far more concrete and sound than the conclusions drawn to by the orthodox Christian view.

In fact, I personally believe that if Isaac Newton was alive today it's highly likely that he would find my theories about Jesus to be quiet interesting. It is quite possible that Isaac Newton simply wasn't fully aware of the history of Mahayana Buddhism and how perfectly it fits into the Jesus story in terms of timing and philosophy. It's really such a perfect match that I can't even imagine it being wrong.

But no Wux, I'm not even remotely considering that the orthodox Christian views of the New Testament could be true. From my perspective that's simply not even possible.

Still, when I speak about why it can't be possible, I need to speak of it as if I am considering the possibility of it potentially being true. In other words, if it were true, then God would need to be like this,.... (i.e. show some utter absurdity).

Thus the only conclusion left is that these stories cannot have come from any all-wise God because that would mean that God would need to be utterly absurd, which does not equate to being "all-wise".

Most of the time the Christians I'm speaking with usually just reply with, "Who are you to judge God's actions to be absurd?"

All that does is show that the whole argument just went right over their head.

But I keep putting it out there anyway.

Who knows, maybe I'm planting seeds that will eventually blossom some day. One can only hope.