January 5th, 2009, 04:27 PM
Jesus must have said, He who sent me. My Father, a genocidal maniac.
The gospel of John shows a whining Jesus stepping up like a boy instead of a God/Man, as martyr for His God half. Too bad he did not step up for his human side, as readily, at the time of the genocidal flood.
Debate.
Does this make Jesus as guilty as God in using genocide against man? Is Jesus a traitor to humanity? Is Satan just curling up with glee? Should any, Gulp, Follow Jesus?
Regards
DL
It is all just made up stories anyway so it can be what ever you want.
January 6th, 2009, 03:01 AM
The montony of your posts is flabbergasting but if you want to keep repeating yourself then I can do the same.
But he did not did he.Originally Posted by Greatest I am
How does a father show his love when his children murder each other, torture each other, use the innocence of children to abuse them, use the trust of the generous to trap and kill them, use the love for others as a means to make them submit to vile treament, and who delight in the horror of good people at monstrous things they do? Does the father just tell them how much he loves them and give them whatever they want? Does he stop them from doing these horrible things? How does he stop them? I can tell you honestly that I would kill them. But does that solve the problem? The abusers and murderers are always dying but those who have been abused perpetuate the behavior by becoming the abusers and murderers themselves.
The spoiled child says, "If you love me you will give me what I want." Do we believe the spoiled child? The spoiled brat says, "If you loved me, then you would not punish me." Is the brat correct? The ignorant child says, "You don't let me do what I want because you hate me." Does this child know what he is talking about?
People are indeed whining all the time and acting like they were two years old spoiled ignorant brats. These are incapable of recognizing love when they see it, and for many of them love is no more than a weakness to exploit and use to their own advantage.
Is it therefore any wonder that God said that He was sorry that He created man? The question is why did God save any of us? Well it appears that He had a plan that started from Genesis chapter 11 to keep us from uniting in a uniform system of thought, which given our habits could only be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent. Thus God has created a beautiful diversity of human thought just as he created a natural world filled with a diversity of species of living things, minerals and object in the sky. This gives us the chance to learn from those who think differently rather than remaking the world in our own spoiled ignorant brat image.
Jesus is God. He is responsible for everything God has done. But there is no guilt whatsoever. Everything God has done was solely motivated by love. He simply has no other motivation. No other motivation would even make sense for Him.
Mankind is a traitor to humanity. Mankind's greatest enemy is himself. When we drop all those nuclear bombs we have made on each other, release all the biologial weapons we have developed and used all the nerve gas and chemical weapons we have made, will you then finally understand who is the traitor to humanity? When we finish destroying the earth so that we can no longer breathe the air, drink the water, or stand in the sunlight because it has all become toxic due to our own stupidity and selfishness, is THAT when you will understand who is the traitor not only to mankind but to the whole earth?
A simple look at the evidence suggests to many that if we would indite God for the events of the flood, it would be because he did not properly finish the job and wipe ALL of the enemies of mankind off the face of the earth. Others, however, see a plan at work, to overcome our sickness and redeem the unredeemable.
Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said, he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth. Jesus said the merciful shall obtain mercy. Jesus said to judge not for with the judgment you give you shall be judged. Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Those who believe that might makes right will not follow such words, but will revile Him, curse Him and spit upon him, as they do to all those who are innocent, who are generous and who love others. Therefore I will say that you have to make a choice about which ideals to follow and to whom you shall be loyal. Will you follow the way of mankind who builds nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to murder the innocent and to destroy the earth with greed, or will you follow the way of Jesus God to meekly serve with mercy and love without judgement?
January 6th, 2009, 12:55 PM
Your rant reminds me of a fable for children where a King says to a hapless victim. Kill him, it will teach him a lesson.The montony of your posts is flabbergasting but if you want to keep repeating yourself then I can do the same.
But he did not did he.
How does a father show his love when his children murder each other, torture each other, use the innocence of children to abuse them, use the trust of the generous to trap and kill them, use the love for others as a means to make them submit to vile treament, and who delight in the horror of good people at monstrous things they do? Does the father just tell them how much he loves them and give them whatever they want? Does he stop them from doing these horrible things? How does he stop them? I can tell you honestly that I would kill them. But does that solve the problem? The abusers and murderers are always dying but those who have been abused perpetuate the behavior by becoming the abusers and murderers themselves.
The spoiled child says, "If you love me you will give me what I want." Do we believe the spoiled child? The spoiled brat says, "If you loved me, then you would not punish me." Is the brat correct? The ignorant child says, "You don't let me do what I want because you hate me." Does this child know what he is talking about?
People are indeed whining all the time and acting like they were two years old spoiled ignorant brats. These are incapable of recognizing love when they see it, and for many of them love is no more than a weakness to exploit and use to their own advantage.
Is it therefore any wonder that God said that He was sorry that He created man? The question is why did God save any of us? Well it appears that He had a plan that started from Genesis chapter 11 to keep us from uniting in a uniform system of thought, which given our habits could only be a system of institutionalized exploitation of the weak and abuse of the innocent. Thus God has created a beautiful diversity of human thought just as he created a natural world filled with a diversity of species of living things, minerals and object in the sky. This gives us the chance to learn from those who think differently rather than remaking the world in our own spoiled ignorant brat image.
Jesus is God. He is responsible for everything God has done. But there is no guilt whatsoever. Everything God has done was solely motivated by love. He simply has no other motivation. No other motivation would even make sense for Him.
Mankind is a traitor to humanity. Mankind's greatest enemy is himself. When we drop all those nuclear bombs we have made on each other, release all the biologial weapons we have developed and used all the nerve gas and chemical weapons we have made, will you then finally understand who is the traitor to humanity? When we finish destroying the earth so that we can no longer breathe the air, drink the water, or stand in the sunlight because it has all become toxic due to our own stupidity and selfishness, is THAT when you will understand who is the traitor not only to mankind but to the whole earth?
A simple look at the evidence suggests to many that if we would indite God for the events of the flood, it would be because he did not properly finish the job and wipe ALL of the enemies of mankind off the face of the earth. Others, however, see a plan at work, to overcome our sickness and redeem the unredeemable.
Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said, he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth. Jesus said the merciful shall obtain mercy. Jesus said to judge not for with the judgment you give you shall be judged. Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Those who believe that might makes right will not follow such words, but will revile Him, curse Him and spit upon him, as they do to all those who are innocent, who are generous and who love others. Therefore I will say that you have to make a choice about which ideals to follow and to whom you shall be loyal. Will you follow the way of mankind who builds nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to murder the innocent and to destroy the earth with greed, or will you follow the way of Jesus God to meekly serve with mercy and love without judgement?
Did you have a point?
Regards
DL
January 6th, 2009, 01:00 PM
Genocide is relative. You could ask, why is it that Jesus is the saviour through whom everyone is saved, but was crucified himself? And if he sacrificed himself, why did he get up after three days? Doesn't that nullify the sacrifice? And if he saved himself, did he even die?
January 6th, 2009, 02:13 PM
I guess to someone who habitually does nothing but rant all the time, a well reason explanation sounds so alien to him that he would call it a "rant", or is that simply the excuse of a functionally illiterate person for not reading something?
Thus the tiny and ignorant child may understand the King's explanation why he must execute the brigands he caught, because they murder people on the road for their money. But as a person gets older and still behaves like an infant, thinking they should get whatever he wants by screaming, ignorance doesn't quite cover it. These are the sort who become the brigands themselves, thinking that they have a right to whatever they can take and no one should punish them for it.
My points are as stated. Do your endlessly and mindlessly repeated rants have a point? But to summarize for the reading impaired here is a list of 4 points:
1)Many people are like spoiled children who cannot recognize love when they see it. Often this is because they only see love as something to exploit in order to abuse people, and thus they declare that anything that stands in their way or seeks to stop them is the opposite of love.
2)It is because of this immaturity that mankind has made itself its own worst enemy, creating weapons to kill itself many times over and quickly poisoning the planet it lives upon.
3)Because of this, our real choices in regards to the flood are either that God failed because He did not finish the job of eliminating all the enemies of mankind (mankind itself) or He has a plan to redeem the whole worthless lot of us.
4)THUS, we need to choose between loyalty to a murderous mankind, following its insane self destructive habits, and loyalty to a God of love, following the words of Jesus who calls us to meekly serve with mercy and love without judgement.
Fantastic theology aside, no, Jesus was a pacifist. His movement was solution to Roman occupation. Some actively resisted, on different levels. Some compromised or collaborated. Some tried asymmetric warfare. Jesus metagamed. Love your enemy.
January 6th, 2009, 03:56 PM
It does visualize in a funny way to see a dead husk of a Jesus piggy backing on a live God half. Strange side view. Three days to the God part is not bad at 1 day = 1000 earth years though. If I had more time I would check on how many seconds of minor irritation to God’s back at the cost of millions of humans.Genocide is relative. You could ask, why is it that Jesus is the saviour through whom everyone is saved, but was crucified himself? And if he sacrificed himself, why did he get up after three days? Doesn't that nullify the sacrifice? And if he saved himself, did he even die?
Regards
DL
Genocide is relative.
If I was a cat then I would have a wish for the genocide of dogs, but if I was a mouse I would have a different relative view for sure.
Relative to whom. The aggresor or the victim?
Regards
DL
January 6th, 2009, 04:08 PM
Thanks for the giggle.I guess to someone who habitually does nothing but rant all the time, a well reason explanation sounds so alien to him that he would call it a "rant", or is that simply the excuse of a functionally illiterate person for not read something?
Thus the tiny and ignorant child may understand the King's explanation why he must execute the brigands he caught because they murder people on the road for their money. But as a person get older and still behaves like an infant who can get whatever he wants by screaming, ignorance doesn't quite cover it. These are the sort who become the brigands themselves, thinking that they have a right to whatever they can take and no one should punish them for it.
My points are as stated. Do your endlessly and mindlessly repeated rants have a point? But to summarize for the reading impaired here is a list of 4 points:
1)Many people are like spoiled child who cannot recognize love when they see it. Often this is because they only see love as something to exploit in order to abuse people, and thus they declare that anything that stands in their way or seeks to stop them is the opposite of love.
2)It is because of the above behavior that mankind has made itself its own worst enemy, creating weapons to kill itself many times over and quickly poisoning the planet it lives upon.
3)Because of this, our real choices in regards to the flood are either that God failed because He did not finish the job of eliminating all the enemies of mankind (mankind itself) or He has a plan to redeem the whole worthless lot of us.
4)THUS, we need to choose between loyalty to a murderous mankind, following its insanity, and loyalty to a God of love, following the words of Jesus who calls us to meekly serve with mercy and love without judgement.
Optimism is good.
Regards
DL
January 7th, 2009, 04:00 AM
It is always a pleasure to bring joy the world.
No, it is not. Optimism is not good. Optimism fails to see the reality of the world and especially of mankind which is quite miserable and hopeless. This kind of blindness is what usually leads to the worst of disasters, because in refusing to face up to the realities we continue blindly on course to our destruction. We have no cause for optimism. We have cause for great fear. There is immense power for the destruction of the earth and humanity in the hands of childish madmen who cannot think past the pleasures they want in the immediate present, like the toddler who only wants to eat candy.
Is it not patently obvious that a faith in God is a desperate hope? We put our hope in God simply because there is no hope to be seen anywhere else. Can hope be found in science? Very little. Science brings us more destructive weapons, so that fewer people with fewer weapons can kill more people. Since the habits of men guide the use of science there is no hope to be found there. Can hope be found in religion? None at all. Religion is either too easy to ignore, sidestep or even manipulate so that people continue on their self-destructive course in spite of what religion may say, thus we cannot say that religion has been effective in changing the nature of man. Indeed, as part of the nature of man, religion tends to be a part of the problem as well.
January 7th, 2009, 12:37 PM
Religionists put their faith in a God because they see that man is not doing well on his own.It is always a pleasure to bring joy the world.
No, it is not. Optimism is not good. Optimism fails to see the reality of the world and especially of mankind which is quite miserable and hopeless. This kind of blindness is what usually leads to the worst of disasters, because in refusing to face up to the realities we continue blindly on course to our destruction. We have no cause for optimism. We have cause for great fear. There is immense power for the destruction of the earth and humanity in the hands of childish madmen who cannot think past the pleasures they want in the immediate present, like the toddler who only wants to eat candy.
Is it not patently obvious that a faith in God is a desperate hope? We put our hope in God simply because there is no hope to be seen anywhere else. Can hope be found in science? Very little. Science brings us more destructive weapons, so that fewer people with fewer weapons can kill more people. Since the habits of men guide the use of science there is no hope to be found there. Can hope be found in religion? None at all. Religion is either too easy to ignore, sidestep or even manipulate so that people continue on their self-destructive course in spite of what religion may say, thus we cannot say that religion has been effective in changing the nature of man. Indeed, as part of the nature of man, religion tends to be a part of the problem as well.
http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com...child-vulture/
We all have freedom of choice. We just exercise it badly.
Regards
DL
January 7th, 2009, 01:06 PM
God/Jesus sinned. Genocide is a sin of high order.
This is a truth.
I will entertain opposing views.
Regards
DL
moderator action: this post was merged with this thread since the topic is identical.
January 7th, 2009, 01:20 PM
The problem, of course, it that this seems to assume EVERYONE is a raving psychopathic killer. While such people do indeed exist, I would submit to you that the vast majority of people aren't so bad as you describe.
I can say with confidence that yes, were I a father whose children were behaving the way you describe, I would indeed stop them if it was in my power to do so.Does he stop them from doing these horrible things?I suspect that were I an omniscient god I would be able to scrounge up a solution.How does he stop them?
Hmm...I'm not so sure about that. I suspect that if everyone who did something really abhorrently terrible was stuck down by a bolt of lightening soon afterward, such behavior would quickly become very uncommon.I can tell you honestly that I would kill them. But does that solve the problem? The abusers and murderers are always dying but those who have been abused perpetuate the behavior by becoming the abusers and murderers themselves.
January 8th, 2009, 01:57 PM
Quite right and that is because people are free to be different, and thus we have the diversity of human thought to thank for this fact and for the fact that things can change. Think about how the norm has change in the course of history. Could that norm have changed if deviation from the norm was not allowed?The problem, of course, it that this seems to assume EVERYONE is a raving psychopathic killer. While such people do indeed exist, I would submit to you that the vast majority of people aren't so bad as you describe.
True but I don't think a wonderful world would be the result of it.
Set any bar on behavior like this and I suspect people would simply find a way to manipulate such a reality for their own ends to not only abuse people within those bound but to use those bounds themselves in order to trap people in a "corner" and thus such a practice would quickly become something that supports a corrupt and evil rule of power over people.
All this does is change the nature of physical law to different bounds of what choices people are allowed and it does absolutely nothing to change the nature of man himself and in fact I believe that it would make such a change impossible.
Meanwhile people would be have this exact same discussion about why God doesn't strike down the people who are misbehaving within those bounds and so you have a slippery slope down to the absolute control of every aspect of human behavior and a world with less and less room for any love or meaning whatsoever.
You might argue that there would be one undeniable consequence that there would be undeniable proof of God's existence, but even if that is the case, I very much doubt that this would be a good thing. The result is that the religous would be far more intolerable than they are already and the all the good that has been done by atheists would never have happened.
January 9th, 2009, 11:18 AM
I do not see where the norm has significantly changed. Man today, other than technology, asks the same questions of God as he did 3000 years ago.Quite right and that is because people are free to be different, and thus we have the diversity of human thought to thank for this fact and for the fact that things can change. Think about how the norm has change in the course of history. Could that norm have changed if deviation from the norm was not allowed?The problem, of course, it that this seems to assume EVERYONE is a raving psychopathic killer. While such people do indeed exist, I would submit to you that the vast majority of people aren't so bad as you describe.
.
What do you think has changed in terms of morals and ethics
Regards
DL
January 9th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Less toleration of slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc...
You may not see this as an improvement but I do.
January 10th, 2009, 01:20 PM
I think we can thank secular government and our own infrastructure for any gains here.Less toleration of slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc...
You may not see this as an improvement but I do.
The numbers are improving yes but we cannot say that we have rid ourselves of any of the ills that have been with us forever.
Regards
DL
January 10th, 2009, 02:56 PM
And who do you think creates these secular governments and infrastructure?I think we can thank secular government and our own infrastructure for any gains here.Less toleration of slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc...
You may not see this as an improvement but I do.
How do suppose that these could possibly be responsible for opposing slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc... unless there has been some improvement in regards to the morals and ethics of the people who create them?
Yeah one of the problems is the perverse tendency of human beings to fail to appreciate moral and ethical improvements that have been made and tear down government and infrastructure in pursuit of their own selfish or hair-brained ideological agendas. Thus it is quite often 100 steps forward and 99 steps back.
January 11th, 2009, 09:37 AM
Sounds like a recant to me. Good for you.And who do you think creates these secular governments and infrastructure?I think we can thank secular government and our own infrastructure for any gains here.Less toleration of slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc...
You may not see this as an improvement but I do.
How do suppose that these could possibly be responsible for opposing slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc... unless there has been some improvement in regards to the morals and ethics of the people who create them?
Yeah one of the problems is the perverse tendency of human beings to fail to appreciate moral and ethical improvements that have been made and tear down government and infrastructure in pursuit of their own selfish or hair-brained ideological agendas. Thus it is quite often 100 steps forward and 99 steps back.
Regards
DL
January 11th, 2009, 10:47 AM
This sounds like evidence of habitual self-delusion to me.Sounds like a recant to me. Good for you.And who do you think creates these secular governments and infrastructure?I think we can thank secular government and our own infrastructure for any gains here.Less toleration of slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc...
You may not see this as an improvement but I do.
How do suppose that these could possibly be responsible for opposing slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc... unless there has been some improvement in regards to the morals and ethics of the people who create them?
Yeah one of the problems is the perverse tendency of human beings to fail to appreciate moral and ethical improvements that have been made and tear down government and infrastructure in pursuit of their own selfish or hair-brained ideological agendas. Thus it is quite often 100 steps forward and 99 steps back.
January 11th, 2009, 10:57 AM
OK.This sounds like evidence of habitual self-delusion to me.Sounds like a recant to me. Good for you.And who do you think creates these secular governments and infrastructure?I think we can thank secular government and our own infrastructure for any gains here.Less toleration of slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc...
You may not see this as an improvement but I do.
How do suppose that these could possibly be responsible for opposing slavery, murder, rape, child abuse, wife abuse, torture, etc... unless there has been some improvement in regards to the morals and ethics of the people who create them?
Yeah one of the problems is the perverse tendency of human beings to fail to appreciate moral and ethical improvements that have been made and tear down government and infrastructure in pursuit of their own selfish or hair-brained ideological agendas. Thus it is quite often 100 steps forward and 99 steps back.
Regards
DL
lol you remind me of a character in the biblical litreture,
This question reminds me of:
atheism,funny,jesus,poster,religion,stupid-3d5472d1118af053d3ca5b4f08464d1c_h.jpg
Let's look at the question of genocide. Let's say you're God. You know for a FACT, not an opinion, that every person you kill will be resurrected because you intend to resurrect them yourself. No life will be (permanently) lost.
Is it really genocide for you then?
It would still be no excuse to order your followers to dash children's heads against rocks(Kings), though Mark suggest Jesus uses similar language to describe what Lucifer might do (though it never happens). Or god ordering the ripping open of pregnant women? The horrendous acts of genocide aren't much less "criminal" even if one does accept they might be resurrected once again so they might be sorted between those going to heaven and those who'll suffer even worse suffering for eternity. Jesus, if he ever really existed, seems to be a man of his times, who was at least smart enough not to commit to direct action against the Romans. His people would eventually turn to violence; it doesn't go well for them.
Yeah. There is the question of psychological trauma. Maybe instead of "genocidal" the correct term would be "sadistic"?
Even if he plans to restore to life the child that got their head beaten in, or the mother that got her pregnant belly cut open, I imagine their souls are probably going to have PTSD for quite a while.
Silly discussion. If you don't believe in God, why discuss as if he is a real person?
read the book of enoch; in the dreams of enoch an outline of rule is established. the bible simply opens the door by design to justifying the culling of these dull little beasts we call mankind through their own vices. The idea as outlined in enochs book is leading the masses to destroy each other to vent their agression away from the ruling class and to trim the old thought paradigms with the induction of the younger into society .
what we call god (we not meaning me) is only an observer. and its not just one emergent consciousness, its beyond what we concieve. I prefer the idea that consciousness is a fundamental force, not a persona.
I think the first thing you need to know here....is find the origin or history how the bible was compiled......
then determine the different languages that were used to translate the bible.....
and check if there are inconsistencies in the bible too .....like
is there really a name Jesus Christ in the bible? .....
I would hope not. Christ is not a name, it's more like a title or based on a Greek word taken up later roughly akin to messia, holy one or something similar. Its use as a name is mostly a modern convention born of ignorance.
Good point, Harold. The answer being those who pretend He doesn't exist are of all humanity the most afraid of Him. They are deeply, terribly afraid, indeed they know God is real and simply cannot bear to face the fact.
Citation for this please.Good point, Harold. The answer being those who pretend He doesn't exist are of all humanity the most afraid of Him. They are deeply, terribly afraid, indeed they know God is real and simply cannot bear to face the fact.
Hopefully this isn't a sweeping brush? Do you acknowledge the existence of people that really have no belief in a god, just as you don't believe in Zeus?Good point, Harold. The answer being those who pretend He doesn't exist are of all humanity the most afraid of Him. They are deeply, terribly afraid, indeed they know God is real and simply cannot bear to face the fact.
You're just pretending that Zeus doesn't exist because you're deeply, terribly afraid of him. You know Zeus is real and simply cannot bear to face the fact.
Man, or woman, whatever you are, I officially adore you :bow:
Why don't we revise this slightly.Good point, Harold. The answer being those who pretend He doesn't exist are of all humanity the most afraid of Him. They are deeply, terribly afraid, indeed they know God is real and simply cannot bear to face the fact.
Good point, Harold. The answer being those who don't believe he exists are of all humanity most afraid of (His Followers). They are deeply, terribly afraid ( of the insane things his followers might decide to do), indeed they know (God's Followers are) real and simply cannot bear to face the fact (that they wield real political power and might choose to act on their insanities).
I think this has gone on long enough. There is no science discussion going on here.
| « What makes one religion more credible than another? | Does religion subtract from knowledge? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
