God sacrificed his only son to absolve our sins???

Page 6 of 7 [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

webcam
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 427

19 Apr 2012, 9:33 am

You have to forget all that you think you know about religion. Perhaps when I have time I will post a thread and teach it to WP.



Mike1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 710

19 Apr 2012, 2:45 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Amongst the many beliefs christians adhere to this one really confounds me. Firstly, god did not sacrifice his only son, according to christian belief Jesus gets taken off the cross and then a day or so later gets up,heads out of the cave, says G'day to all his mates, then heads on home.

Secondly an all powerful god can think of no better way to forgive our transgressions than to brutally torture his son??? The same son who some believe (just to really compound the inconsistencies of the story) is god himself.

Can someone please try to explain where my thought processes have gone awry, because surely billions of christians cant be hoodwinked by the story as I perceive it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bpc7LSRZc[/youtube]



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

19 Apr 2012, 4:55 pm

webcam wrote:
You have to assume that the believers don't actually believe. You can't accept that they put any kind of faith in an afterlife that occurs after you are dead an buried.


Then you would be incorrect. Yes for sure, it would seem logical to see religious belief in the way you do, and undoubtedly some people slot neatly into your understanding. However there are a great many believers who do actually believe what they are told, how many of those fall into the "cognitive Dissonance" slot is anyone's guess, but even those still believe the nonsense.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

19 Apr 2012, 7:19 pm

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (in I forget which novel) suggested that they botched the Gospels.
Well he has a character read this in a novel within the novel- I guess Vonnegut didnt want to be accused of blasphemy.

The mob grabs this carpenter guy who seems to be a just a lowerclass bloke and lynches him on the cross.

Then God announces that "that was my son you just lynched" in order to teach people to stop mistreating each other.

But Vonnegut said that "By allowing his son to be martyred God sent the wrong message. Instead of getting the message that you shouldnt mistreat people the human race got the message that 'you shouldnt mess with people who are well connected'."

So the next time around God is going to find a guy on death row who really is just riff raff and as this guy is being martyred publicly ADOPT him as his son!



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

20 Apr 2012, 1:19 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... and to deceive impoverished, gullible people by telling them that condoms help spread AIDS instead of preventing it :roll: But yes, they also collect money for the poor and destitute. How much of this money arrives at those in need is anyone's bet.

Mother Teresa raised vast amounts of money that was supposed to help starving people in Africa, flood victims in Bangladesh, and poor children in India. Much of it was donated by deeply religious people who were rather poor themselves. So where did it end up? Most of it just sat in the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity and gained interest ($50 million in one New York bank account, according to Christopher Hitchens). A lot of the rest was used to build additional nunneries and increase the number of unpaid foot soldiers of the Catholic Church. Only a small fraction was really applied to charitable purposes.


That is what the Catholics have done not proestants.


The Protestant churches are also quite wealthy. They don't have their own bank and their own little state full of priceless art and plundered cultural treasures (such as the largest repository of original Hebrew manuscripts that were stolen from massacred or forcefully converted Jews), but they do have vast land holdings, buildings, institutions and financial assets. They are businesses, not charities.


I go to a very small methodist church we are not that wealthy we go to Costa Rica every year and do fund raisers to help out the poor in our community we even give out free food every week that we personally grow ourselfs. But it seems you will just view us all the same in the end even though we are not.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

20 Apr 2012, 1:22 pm

Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... and to deceive impoverished, gullible people by telling them that condoms help spread AIDS instead of preventing it :roll: But yes, they also collect money for the poor and destitute. How much of this money arrives at those in need is anyone's bet.

Mother Teresa raised vast amounts of money that was supposed to help starving people in Africa, flood victims in Bangladesh, and poor children in India. Much of it was donated by deeply religious people who were rather poor themselves. So where did it end up? Most of it just sat in the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity and gained interest ($50 million in one New York bank account, according to Christopher Hitchens). A lot of the rest was used to build additional nunneries and increase the number of unpaid foot soldiers of the Catholic Church. Only a small fraction was really applied to charitable purposes.


That is what the Catholics have done not proestants.


The Protestant churches are also quite wealthy. They don't have their own bank and their own little state full of priceless art and plundered cultural treasures (such as the largest repository of original Hebrew manuscripts that were stolen from massacred or forcefully converted Jews), but they do have vast land holdings, buildings, institutions and financial assets. They are businesses, not charities.


I go to a very small methodist church we are not that wealthy we go to Costa Rica every year and do fund raisers to help out the poor in our community we even give out free food every week that we personally grow ourselfs. But it seems you will just view us all the same in the end even though we are not.


If your church is not wealthy, why do you guys go to Costa Rica every year?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

20 Apr 2012, 1:23 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
It's a scam that allows an entire clerical class of people to make a comfortable living without doing anything of value, provides them with social status, and gives them a great deal of influence. It also allows politicians to deceive and control the faithful masses by masquerading their own agenda as the will of god.


Churches do mission trips all around the world with out a religious motive like helping towns that get hit by tornados hurricanes ect.


... and to deceive impoverished, gullible people by telling them that condoms help spread AIDS instead of preventing it :roll: But yes, they also collect money for the poor and destitute. How much of this money arrives at those in need is anyone's bet.

Mother Teresa raised vast amounts of money that was supposed to help starving people in Africa, flood victims in Bangladesh, and poor children in India. Much of it was donated by deeply religious people who were rather poor themselves. So where did it end up? Most of it just sat in the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity and gained interest ($50 million in one New York bank account, according to Christopher Hitchens). A lot of the rest was used to build additional nunneries and increase the number of unpaid foot soldiers of the Catholic Church. Only a small fraction was really applied to charitable purposes.


That is what the Catholics have done not proestants.


You're perfectly correct. What the protestants do is send Bibles to Japan instead of food and blankets, attempt to cross international borders in total defiance of the authority of multiple nations (and then b***h at the USA when they get caught), and ship food and supplies to impoverished nations that they'll only hand out if their 'beneficiaries' attend Sunday school and convert to the Faith.

Soooooo much morally better.


Not true at all we give out the food and water with out asking them to attend church how ever some churches do that but how ever mine does not we do Mission trips for the people that want to know about our faiths. And we also do humanitaritan work as well way to go generatlizing us all as one big group and you are talkin to me about morals :lol:



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,682
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

20 Apr 2012, 3:01 pm

@OP

I don't know, and the whole thing's coming back since my couple years as an atheist/reductive materialist just took a fatal insult.

My best answer: it doesn't seem like we're here to really be 'judged' or figure much out, and I don't think any of us will be able to see it in the kind of profundity that it comes with until we're gone ourselves and have our full minds back.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

20 Apr 2012, 6:05 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... and to deceive impoverished, gullible people by telling them that condoms help spread AIDS instead of preventing it :roll: But yes, they also collect money for the poor and destitute. How much of this money arrives at those in need is anyone's bet.

Mother Teresa raised vast amounts of money that was supposed to help starving people in Africa, flood victims in Bangladesh, and poor children in India. Much of it was donated by deeply religious people who were rather poor themselves. So where did it end up? Most of it just sat in the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity and gained interest ($50 million in one New York bank account, according to Christopher Hitchens). A lot of the rest was used to build additional nunneries and increase the number of unpaid foot soldiers of the Catholic Church. Only a small fraction was really applied to charitable purposes.


That is what the Catholics have done not proestants.


The Protestant churches are also quite wealthy. They don't have their own bank and their own little state full of priceless art and plundered cultural treasures (such as the largest repository of original Hebrew manuscripts that were stolen from massacred or forcefully converted Jews), but they do have vast land holdings, buildings, institutions and financial assets. They are businesses, not charities.


I go to a very small methodist church we are not that wealthy we go to Costa Rica every year and do fund raisers to help out the poor in our community we even give out free food every week that we personally grow ourselfs. But it seems you will just view us all the same in the end even though we are not.


If your church is not wealthy, why do you guys go to Costa Rica every year?


We raise money by donig fund raisers to pay for the trip.



Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

20 Apr 2012, 6:11 pm

Joker wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... and to deceive impoverished, gullible people by telling them that condoms help spread AIDS instead of preventing it :roll: But yes, they also collect money for the poor and destitute. How much of this money arrives at those in need is anyone's bet.

Mother Teresa raised vast amounts of money that was supposed to help starving people in Africa, flood victims in Bangladesh, and poor children in India. Much of it was donated by deeply religious people who were rather poor themselves. So where did it end up? Most of it just sat in the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity and gained interest ($50 million in one New York bank account, according to Christopher Hitchens). A lot of the rest was used to build additional nunneries and increase the number of unpaid foot soldiers of the Catholic Church. Only a small fraction was really applied to charitable purposes.


That is what the Catholics have done not proestants.


The Protestant churches are also quite wealthy. They don't have their own bank and their own little state full of priceless art and plundered cultural treasures (such as the largest repository of original Hebrew manuscripts that were stolen from massacred or forcefully converted Jews), but they do have vast land holdings, buildings, institutions and financial assets. They are businesses, not charities.


I go to a very small methodist church we are not that wealthy we go to Costa Rica every year and do fund raisers to help out the poor in our community we even give out free food every week that we personally grow ourselfs. But it seems you will just view us all the same in the end even though we are not.


If your church is not wealthy, why do you guys go to Costa Rica every year?


We raise money by donig fund raisers to pay for the trip.


So you siphon money from the already-destitute, removing it from the local economy, so you can go to another nation and make yourselves feel better about helping them rather than extending a hand to those in need at home.

Stiiiiiill not detecting the presence of any moral high ground.


_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

20 Apr 2012, 6:17 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
Joker wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Joker wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
... and to deceive impoverished, gullible people by telling them that condoms help spread AIDS instead of preventing it :roll: But yes, they also collect money for the poor and destitute. How much of this money arrives at those in need is anyone's bet.

Mother Teresa raised vast amounts of money that was supposed to help starving people in Africa, flood victims in Bangladesh, and poor children in India. Much of it was donated by deeply religious people who were rather poor themselves. So where did it end up? Most of it just sat in the bank accounts of the Missionaries of Charity and gained interest ($50 million in one New York bank account, according to Christopher Hitchens). A lot of the rest was used to build additional nunneries and increase the number of unpaid foot soldiers of the Catholic Church. Only a small fraction was really applied to charitable purposes.


That is what the Catholics have done not proestants.


The Protestant churches are also quite wealthy. They don't have their own bank and their own little state full of priceless art and plundered cultural treasures (such as the largest repository of original Hebrew manuscripts that were stolen from massacred or forcefully converted Jews), but they do have vast land holdings, buildings, institutions and financial assets. They are businesses, not charities.


I go to a very small methodist church we are not that wealthy we go to Costa Rica every year and do fund raisers to help out the poor in our community we even give out free food every week that we personally grow ourselfs. But it seems you will just view us all the same in the end even though we are not.


If your church is not wealthy, why do you guys go to Costa Rica every year?


We raise money by donig fund raisers to pay for the trip.


So you siphon money from the already-destitute, removing it from the local economy, so you can go to another nation and make yourselves feel better about helping them rather than extending a hand to those in need at home.

Stiiiiiill not detecting the presence of any moral high ground.


This year we went to Boone in NC and donated about three thousand clothes for the homless shelter in Boone which is the largest next week I am in charge of taking to youth to help do yard work for the eldery we do not do it to feel good or for a religious reason we do it for humanitarian reasons rather then a religious one.

When Katrina hit New Orleans I took the week off from school and a few youth memmebers did to so we could help clean of the damages and built peoples homes back. But not for a RELIGIOUS reason we do a lot of humanitarian work for our country and many other countries as well not to make ourselfs feel good or for a religious reason my church does a lot fo humanitarian work.

Next week we will be doing some fundraiser to help raise money for breast cancer research.



AspieAshley
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 174
Location: Bloomington, MN

21 Apr 2012, 2:23 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
surely billions of christians cant be hoodwinked by the story as I perceive it.


YES THEY CAN. This world is built on lies.


_________________
Letting go is not a skill--it's the lazy way out. The real skill is having the courage to stand up for yourself and demand justice.
I'm not mentally ill--the world is!


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

21 Apr 2012, 2:30 am

I don't see the problem with the logic of the Jesus story. It goes like this:

God told Adam and Eve not to eat an apple.
A snake told them to eat the apple and they did
God had a temper-tantrum and acted all offended even though he new forever that this was going to happen
God cursed humanity
Every human born was hopelessly damned with "original sin" because some pinheads at an apple thousands of years ago
But God wanted to forgive us for our distant ancestors eating the apple
So he came up with an utterly brilliant plan to forgive our original sin
He would send his only son to Earth (who was really him but not really)
Humans would beat, whip, torture, and brutally execute his son who was him
Once humans were so kind as to do this to God's son, I mean God, God forgave our horrible original sin of eating an apple.

Those of you who think there is some sort of problem with this story, clearly just don't understand how brilliant God is.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

21 Apr 2012, 2:30 am

AspieAshley wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
surely billions of christians cant be hoodwinked by the story as I perceive it.


YES THEY CAN. This world is built on lies.


If the world is build on lies then how do we know what is truth?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Apr 2012, 2:37 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Amongst the many beliefs christians adhere to this one really confounds me. Firstly, god did not sacrifice his only son, according to christian belief Jesus gets taken off the cross and then a day or so later gets up,heads out of the cave, says G'day to all his mates, then heads on home.

Secondly an all powerful god can think of no better way to forgive our transgressions than to brutally torture his son??? The same son who some believe (just to really compound the inconsistencies of the story) is god himself.

Can someone please try to explain where my thought processes have gone awry, because surely billions of christians cant be hoodwinked by the story as I perceive it.


The need for sacrifice is established in Genesis and Leviticus, namely the blood sacrifice of animals prior to Christ's final sacrifice, in atonement for our transgressions - our disobedience to God's will. Isaiah 7, 9, & 53 identify that God would take on human flesh, become a human being, and in (I think it was) second Samuel or first Kings it was identified that he would be born to lineage of King David, hence why a lot of people kept calling Him the son of David. God could have just killed us off at the start when our first parents disobeyed His one rule then, but instead He provided a way of temporary atonement in the sacrifice of the animal there to cover their nakedness with clothes and in Genesis 3:15 He also promised that a permanent atonement would be provided also - that He would be born of a woman and that the devil would strike His heel, Himself, Christ the cornerstone whom the builders rejected, and He would crush the devil in that same event essentially.



NarcissusSavage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 675

21 Apr 2012, 3:45 am

Ragtime wrote:
I'm getting a little tired of all the blasphemy. That's all I want to say right now. I don't think it proves or conveys anything except what is in the hearts of those who speak it.

Jesus: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies..." (Matt 15:19)


I that's hilarious that you use this quote. It suggests you think that questioning a book and not blindly following the word of others is as bad as murder, adultery, fornication, and theft.

The ironic part of it, I find...is that the line says "false witness" too. And from my perspective of the world, that is exactly what religion is! That is what Jesus is warning you against in this quote! Warning you against religion!


_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.