well how do you suggest you rid ignorance without experience clueless? with some implant? we're not in the matrix, you know? we had communion with our creator, the source of all knowledge, and that wasn't good enough. it comes down to trust, and you can't trust in ignorance. this isn't supposed to be about having blind faith.
Did Jesus Suffer Enough?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
well how do you suggest you rid ignorance without experience clueless? with some implant? we're not in the matrix, you know? we had communion with our creator, the source of all knowledge, and that wasn't good enough. it comes down to trust, and you can't trust in ignorance. this isn't supposed to be about having blind faith.
That shoudnt be a prollem for a all-knowin all-powerful God... lol... thats why its perty obvous that Eve sinnin was esential in Gods ultimate plan which includes almos everbody windin up bein tortured in hell for eternity.!!!
Hell... even a ignerent mortal such as myself gave my puppy esperience about a wood stove which didnt include torture... i simply warmed the stove an let her investigate... she put her paws on it an i told her "hot"... "hot"... an i then warmed it a bit mor an she sniffed at it an baked away... of course if i had been a monster-mortal... the firs time she touched the stove i woud have fired it up an tossed her in.!!!
To clueluss
Re spelling
There is no disrespect intended in my comment. When I read your posts, I see a sharp intelligence underlying them. You manage to see through the religious nonsense very clearly.
I am, though, a bit puzzled. You often post (by accident?) sections of text that are very well spelled. Yet you appear to be putting forward an image of someone who is quite ingenuous and uneducated.
I suspect there is genius underlying the apparent naievity. I cannot quite see it yet. A nice little puzzle. I strongly suspect that you are smarter, and a much better speller than the image you are presenting.
Re spelling
There is no disrespect intended in my comment. When I read your posts, I see a sharp intelligence underlying them. You manage to see through the religious nonsense very clearly.
I am, though, a bit puzzled. You often post (by accident?) sections of text that are very well spelled. Yet you appear to be putting forward an image of someone who is quite ingenuous and uneducated.
I suspect there is genius underlying the apparent naievity. I cannot quite see it yet. A nice little puzzle. I strongly suspect that you are smarter, and a much better speller than the image you are presenting.
do you blame your parents when something bad happens to you clueless?
...
you claim its a word game when someone tries to point out the differences while using your own word games like ignorant and punished..which tells me you have no desire to seek understanding..
your refusal to understand why your words (ignorant,tortured.) are not the correct words, is just more evidence that you do not seek to understand.
are you trying to understand? or are you trying to convince everyone he is a monster.
this is very true Lori..its hard to convince god-haters that just cause the christian is messed up does not make god messed up.
hey clueless if that is a program you are using to misspell..i want a copy..
my advice to clueless is the same as i would give anyone else..
lean not on your own understanding,
Thank you... an here is a piece of it:::
I started postin in webtv groops about 12 years ago an spellin wasnt a issue... which was fine wit me cause i never was a good speller... but long story short... i spell words the way im used to spellin 'em which is kinda like i talk which is comfortabel to me... if i had to use a dictonary an spell check it woudnt be wort it to me to post.!!!
To NM
Non believer is not the same as God hater.
Personally I do not hate God. How can you hate a fictional character? What I hate is non rational thinking. Clueluss is pointing out how irrational religious illogic is. I agree with him on that.
Christians say that God is omnipotent and totally good - a loving father to humanity. Yet the entire bible is full of stories of God as hater. The prophet Elishs was apparently bald. When 42 kids made fun of his baldness, God sent a two female bears to tear the kids into shreds. This is just one of many stories that show God to be utterly cruel and horrible.
http://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25
The image of God that is so dearly held by Christians is totally falsified by the bible, and yet lots of Christians say the bible is literally true. Can you not see the lack of rationality in those arguments?
Non believer is not the same as God hater.
Personally I do not hate God. How can you hate a fictional character? What I hate is non rational thinking. Clueluss is pointing out how irrational religious illogic is. I agree with him on that.
Christians say that God is omnipotent and totally good - a loving father to humanity. Yet the entire bible is full of stories of God as hater. The prophet Elishs was apparently bald. When 42 kids made fun of his baldness, God sent a two female bears to tear the kids into shreds. This is just one of many stories that show God to be utterly cruel and horrible.
http://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25
The image of God that is so dearly held by Christians is totally falsified by the bible, and yet lots of Christians say the bible is literally true. Can you not see the lack of rationality in those arguments?
There's a difference between hate - an unreasonable, emotional and vindictive response (at least as the word is used in modern English) - and punishment. Parents can punish their children without hating them, even if the children call it hate in resentment.
Bears often attack people and nobody ever calls it "nature's hatred". The context in Elisha's case obviously turned it into a cautionary tale, since at the time perfectly natural events - droughts, floods, earthquakes - were readily attributed to God's justice. Jesus changed all that. Now people who see something like a tsunami as particular retribution only seem ignorant.
Speaking of the difference Jesus made... There are more helpful ways of understanding Jesus' sacrifice than the Sunday school version. It helps to think of the crucifixion as God speaking in a 'language' people could understand - a demonstration.
Here's a nice primer from the Experimental Theology blog: The Voice of the Scapegoat
Bears often attack people and nobody ever calls it "nature's hatred". The context in Elisha's case obviously turned it into a cautionary tale, since at the time perfectly natural events - droughts, floods, earthquakes - were readily attributed to God's justice. Jesus changed all that. Now people who see something like a tsunami as particular retribution only seem ignorant.
Speaking of the difference Jesus made... There are more helpful ways of understanding Jesus' sacrifice than the Sunday school version. It helps to think of the crucifixion as God speaking in a 'language' people could understand - a demonstration.
Here's a nice primer from the Experimental Theology blog: The Voice of the Scapegoat
Do you see eternal hell as bein reasonable.???
*************
M*W: So, what are you saying then, that since the crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment, god spoke Latin??? I can see that you are still dancing around your fictional Jesus.
The only "hell" we experience, is right here on earth..
And thankfully, it's not eternal.
Unless you believe in reincarnation
I am also of the opinion that hell simply describes the worst of what life already offers, and the idea is that when God has saved/redeemed all that's 'good', whatever is left will be unmitigated and therefore particularly unpleasant.
I was referring to the example of hate Skeptical was using.cluelusshusbund said:
But to extend the thought, if heaven really is a supernatural place or state - a place without hate or strife and which only exists if God exists - then that place is the exception and the unreasonable conclusion. Hell, as Gremmie said, is simply what we already experience - "things as they are" (or had become) - nothing stranger than that; no emotion attached, no "hatred" involved.
When the ancients talked about hell, they conceived it as a prison or a tomb, a place where there's no hope of/for living.
That explains why, in Revelation 20:13-14, death and hell (classically 'Hades') can "give up the dead that were in them". And only then will everyone be sifted.
The real danger, according to Revelations, is the so-called second death or "lake of fire" (where death and hell and everything related to them ends up) - a kind of end of all ends.
But that's only bad for people who believe in God. For someone who doesn't believe in God, it may be replaced with a question mark, depending on what you believe about life and consciousness after death.
The universe and humanity won't last forever - and that's simple physics, not "hatred".
Last edited:
All language is symbolic.
Also to put something straight: The amount that Jesus suffered was purely incidental to the verdict he received, the death penalty, and could in no way influence the value of his sacrifice. Considering the context, one might as well be arguing about the colour of Jesus' sandals when he walked out of the tomb.
Under Roman rule, the death penalty for enemies of the state happened to take the form of crucifixion. (Romans were exempt from crucifixion and in stead received the more merciful death by beheading.)
But the place and timing of Jesus' death penalty was significant. Crucifixion was a particularly shameful and humiliating death to Jews, to whom considered was an illegal form of punishment. Moreover, being "hung on a tree" was a sign of God's curse (hence Paul's argument in Galatians 3:13). Finally, the symbol of an innocent sacrifice and a suffering servant of God invoked vivid images from Israel's history that spoke to them very powerfully.
It should be obvious that whatever the crucifixion meant to Jesus' disciples then, and to us now (even disregarding the resurrection afterwards), had much more to do with its context within their history and religion than the amount of blood spilled or pain inflicted.
Under Roman rule, the death penalty for enemies of the state happened to take the form of crucifixion. (Romans were exempt from crucifixion and in stead received the more merciful death by beheading.)
But the place and timing of Jesus' death penalty was significant. Crucifixion was a particularly shameful and humiliating death to Jews, to whom considered was an illegal form of punishment. Moreover, being "hung on a tree" was a sign of God's curse (hence Paul's argument in Galatians 3:13). Finally, the symbol of an innocent sacrifice and a suffering servant of God invoked vivid images from Israel's history that spoke to them very powerfully.
It should be obvious that whatever the crucifixion meant to Jesus' disciples then, and to us now (even disregarding the resurrection afterwards), had much more to do with its context within their history and religion than the amount of blood spilled or pain inflicted.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: Okay, I would agree with that "all language is symbolic." I would add that all religion is symbolic. All things 'symbolic' are simply manifestations of the human mind in order to explain things and understand meanings for the purposes of expression. It doesn't mean they need to have actually taken place in reality.
That is only partly true. "Religion" covers many field - including history, which is not itself symbolic. But for the ancients history also had symbolic meaning - it had to be interpreted (a great flood, for instance). Because they believed in God, every fact or event had potential for meaning.
They saw reality itself as symbolic not only their explanations of them (the 'religion' you speak of).
Look at what Isaiah says, for instance: "Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty".
They saw reality itself as symbolic not only their explanations of them (the 'religion' you speak of).
Look at what Isaiah says, for instance: "Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty".
You know if you take just the red words out of the bible and throw away everything else.. it makes much more sense. Its debatable if Jesus ever really called himself God, the different gospels portray that differently. Actually the later the gospel is written the more divine he gets, I suspect Jesus would have told everyone that we are all God's children. It just seems more fit to his character and common sense spirituality.
I often like to flip through the bible and just red the red words, the only other comforting aspects of common sense doctrine is some of what Paul writes.. but not all of it. I bet if they knew how fundamental and non-tolerant some aspects of their religion has become they would be appalled.
So we shouldn't blame Jesus, blame the people that wrote about him and made the bible such a contradictory and inaccurate book. Though I have to admit the new testament is an improvement on the old testament.
The world needs a new religion I think, every new religion is more tolerant and more peaceful than the one that preceded it. Religion has hit a dry spell (no I don't count scientology since I don't know much about it except from unreliable sources).
I often like to flip through the bible and just red the red words, the only other comforting aspects of common sense doctrine is some of what Paul writes.. but not all of it. I bet if they knew how fundamental and non-tolerant some aspects of their religion has become they would be appalled.
So we shouldn't blame Jesus, blame the people that wrote about him and made the bible such a contradictory and inaccurate book. Though I have to admit the new testament is an improvement on the old testament.
The world needs a new religion I think, every new religion is more tolerant and more peaceful than the one that preceded it. Religion has hit a dry spell (no I don't count scientology since I don't know much about it except from unreliable sources).
i often think that god is up in heaven doing this..:facepalm:
i think without the old testament we would not understand the old testament..its like the old was for the baby's and the new is for the mature..
God No!..not a new religion..that sets up the same problems old religions have..(IE absolute power corrupts..etc)
i have actually read dianetics from cover to cover (origin of scientology)..it influenced my life for the better..but i do not treat it like a bible..
it is worthy of a read..
but it does mean that they mean something.
*************
M*W: That is the most useless thing I've heard on this forum. It was man who highlighted those "red words." What's "debatable" is that Jesus ever existed in the first place. What Jesus may or may not have "called himself" were words written by someone else (but NOT Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul or Ringo). Now, tell me, how have you come to the conclusion that "the later the gospel is written, the more divine" it is? By whose standards are you referring? Your own? Please...
*************
M*W: I prefer the words in burnt sienna myself.
*************
M*W: No, you are right, we shouldn't "blame Jesus" anymore than we should blame Tom Sawyer, Holden Caulfield or Robert Langdon. They are about as real as Jesus.
*************
M*W: What in the hell would this world do with a new religion??? That's got to be the second most useless thing I've heard on this forum. Let me rephrase your "religion has hit a dry spell..." theory. Christianity has finally choked on its own evil tail of "unreliable sources," (thanks to those wonderful, enlightened folks over at the new testament authorship).
BTW, read these red words. "I am a simpleton." "I have made stupid comments on a scientific forum." "I don't belong here."