The absurdity of Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

Seems simple enough for any reasonable person to understand.

If it were really like that, I'd have to join you in rejecting the Christian God, but I don't believe it is. I think what we're getting is some bastardized Rule book that's had things inserted and taken away for political or financial gain by those in power. I'm not Christian; I have a different path but, spoiler alert, all God's children get saved. It's kinda already been done though; as soon as we get our head out of our ...... we'll realize it.

If God is perfect unlimited love ,and we are his children ,then he wouldn’t fry us for ignorance of his law or for breaking it.
I’m a mom.I love my kids very much.If God’s love for us is greater than mine for my children ,then no one is toast.
Who could toss their disobedient child into a volcano?
Now you have assigned a limit to your God’s love.

It seems especially absurd for a loving deity to send anybody to eternal torment just for not believing he exists - on the contrary, if you believe in hell, you open up the question that you're only behaving yourself for the selfish motive of avoiding an eternal frying, while an atheist's righteous behaviour can only be caused by nobler motives.

Even the Jewish religion itself didn't begin by touting any carrot-and-stick afterlife until around 200 BC. Somewhere along the line they slipped the idea in, and the entrance requirements have been shifting around ever since. At one time a rich man who left Lazarus to starve at his gate went to hell, later on in the Deep South of the USA the idea somehow emerged that you'd be sent there for the appalling crime of helping a slave to escape. I feel sorry for anybody who believes in hell. The rules are so vague and variable that they have no way of knowing they're not going there. Maybe a deathbed repentance will fix things, or maybe it'll just make it worse. That must be scarier than just thinking (as I do) that they'll simply cease to exist when they die.

Indra's net is a metaphor for the cosmos created by the Huayan school of buddhism in China and based on their idea of the vedic philosophy of the cosmos. It's very beautiful.

This likely is post-new testament, the idea of the trinity of god the father, son and holy ghost. But It's still one god. Interestingly this type of manifestation of god the father and son is also found in hinduism where Vishnu/Shiva is like god the father and Krishna is like god the son (he visited earth to teach mankind) and brahma is the hold spirit.

But the old testament genesis story is clearly pre-monotheistic as god often refers to "us" as there used to be a pantheon of gods in the belief system of the jews of old.

I think its important to understand we are projecting our 21st century western European values on a god who was born among wandering patriarchal warlike tribes in the middle east. Our biblical god seems remarkably like an old grumpy tribal patriarch who would be more at home among the Taliban or Al Qaeda than among progressive free thinkers.

It's more like they jump into the lake, laughing about how clever they are as they flip you off. Kids do that sort of thing all the time, it doesn't mean you don't or didn't ever love them.

It also means I wouldn’t exterminate them.If they did jump in that proverbial lake I’d fish them out.

Then we need a new improved God.

Aka Hadron Bootstrap.

In Christianity context, is Jesus God or Son of God? It seems to me there’s no consensus and there are differing denominations and opinions on that.

What would make more sense that If God made himself born as a human to experience human life and human pains, hence changing God’s perspective on humans and made him to forgive them?

I couldn't agree more - that if the qualities of the Christian God are as bad as I'm hearing here, then of course, Christendom would need a new one. But it seems (to me) that we are letting the most hmm, how do I say this without offending anyone... Oh heck, someone will be offended no matter what I say I suppose and so...

Where does the tendency originate, to allow those who live the most fear-based lives, and demonstrate (imo) the least understanding of the Bible and their God, to do the interpreting of the Bible?



Precisely! Just as "we are projecting our 21st century western European values on a god who...", those folks from 2000 years ago that told the stories that turned into the Bible projected their 1st century Middle Eastern values on to a god who...

I recently said in another thread:



Likewise, the illiterate goat herders who embraced the most unspiritual principle of 'Us/Them' and placed it as the foundation of their understanding of the world - they didn't see 'truth' either. Maybe none of us can, but in the "Best eyesight for seeing the truth" contest, I'd guess they're running close to last.

Think about the most ignorant person you know. Now take away their education. Now run them through a much narrower gene pool.

Now hire them to do your taxes.

What? No? You wouldn't trust their decision making powers with your taxes but you'd trust them with your soul?

No one is getting tossed into a lake of fire even though that sounded like a really good idea to the guy you wouldn't let do your taxes. As a matter of fact, the idea is more absurd than the idea that the Covid vaccine is a way for the government to track you...but, if I had to guess, I'd say there's a very good chance that those who think it is are probably descendants of the folks that thought a loving god would burn his children in a lake of fire.

What if there is a terrible cost attached to doing that? One visited upon the children that don't jump in?

Depends who you ask, but the most common understanding is "both". It isn't actually very important, it's odd that so much argument is created by that particular question.

Let me do that ever-popular method of answering a question with a question...

There was just one cloud in the sky that I could see from my home this morning, but it was immense. Let's assume that the cloud is made of a homogenous mixture of water vapor, dust, etc. Then, as I was enjoying my coffee, the winds conspired with chance and a piece of the immense cloud broke off forming a second, much smaller cloud.

Is the second, smaller cloud part of the first one - or is it a different cloud that has the exact same composition as the first?