Jesus Poll
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
I would not tick any box that claims Jesus had supernatural origins or powers.
I would also hesitate to tick the box Jesus never existed at all, or that he did exist but was a normal human.
But I do know that there are no trust worthy sources on this person called Jesus.
I am 100% certain that at the very least... almost everything you read about Jesus in the Bible is a bullshit fairytale. I don't understand how anyone could think any different... I mean... just READ it!
I would also hesitate to tick the box Jesus never existed at all, or that he did exist but was a normal human.
But I do know that there are no trust worthy sources on this person called Jesus.
I am 100% certain that at the very least... almost everything you read about Jesus in the Bible is a bullshit fairytale. I don't understand how anyone could think any different... I mean... just READ it!
I pulled a modified "fundy" lever the Bible has seen to much translation and modification to be accurate. Especially the King James bible, as that man had it rewrote to fit his views.
Ones you may have wanted to add
Jesus was black and carried a whip. While he preached tolerance he also preached to defend yourself from others.
Jesus was married and that their were three Johns in his life. John his friend, John his brother, and John his son.
(Don't get me wrong I don't think there are any descendants of God running around other than Jesus. All of Jesus' kids would be normal human like me or you. Not blessed with the presence of the holy spirit.)
Ones you may have wanted to add
Jesus was black and carried a whip. While he preached tolerance he also preached to defend yourself from others.
Jesus was married and that their were three Johns in his life. John his friend, John his brother, and John his son.
(Don't get me wrong I don't think there are any descendants of God running around other than Jesus. All of Jesus' kids would be normal human like me or you. Not blessed with the presence of the holy spirit.)
Cool,
The intent of the verse is to evoke deep emotion that relates to how you would feel if your only son/offspring were to die. That a god would give up such a perfect son is a stupendous act of sacrifice (note that the alleged Jesus according to the myth sacrificed himself). The key issue though only has merit if the loss is permanent. If my only son were to die I would have absolutely no expectation of ever seeing him alive again and that is very sad. But the God/Jesus scenario doesn’t come close to that paradigm.
Firstly Jesus is alleged to have resurrected. If this occurs then clearly there would not have been a permanent loss. Secondly God is allegedly omniscient so he would know his son would resurrect so he would have nothing to worry about and knew he would not suffer any real loss, and in effect it would only be about 3 days, no time at all for an infinite god.
So what did God give up? Apparently nothing at all. So the statement that he so loved the world because of this now non-sacrifice also loses all merit. In effect the verse says nothing worthwhile. It is entirely empty Christian propaganda of the worst kind.
In effect the act of ressurection destroys all merit to the emotion. If Jesus had died and was lost permanently then that would be a true altruistic act and demonstration that this god loved the world. But not so.
While this evoked much emotion in me when I was a Christian I now realize that this statement is necessarily false and meaningless.
The intent of the verse is to evoke deep emotion that relates to how you would feel if your only son/offspring were to die. That a god would give up such a perfect son is a stupendous act of sacrifice (note that the alleged Jesus according to the myth sacrificed himself). The key issue though only has merit if the loss is permanent. If my only son were to die I would have absolutely no expectation of ever seeing him alive again and that is very sad. But the God/Jesus scenario doesn’t come close to that paradigm.
Firstly Jesus is alleged to have resurrected. If this occurs then clearly there would not have been a permanent loss. Secondly God is allegedly omniscient so he would know his son would resurrect so he would have nothing to worry about and knew he would not suffer any real loss, and in effect it would only be about 3 days, no time at all for an infinite god.
So what did God give up? Apparently nothing at all. So the statement that he so loved the world because of this now non-sacrifice also loses all merit. In effect the verse says nothing worthwhile. It is entirely empty Christian propaganda of the worst kind.
In effect the act of ressurection destroys all merit to the emotion. If Jesus had died and was lost permanently then that would be a true altruistic act and demonstration that this god loved the world. But not so.
Last edited:
cool skill said:
For the Flying Spaghetti Monster so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son (the Flying Invisible Pink Unicorn), that whomever accepts his existence as truth without considering evidence shall not perish but have eternal life. Amen.
All of the options could not be posted in a poll so I opted for the did exist and was only human.
He existed in an Anti-Roman faction known as the Sons of God; who preached violent overthrow of the Roman oppressors. He, however, preached peaceful solutions. He did not even die on the cross, nor the same day as "removed". He did not resurrect himself, nor anybody else for that matter and died a natural death later on in life.
He was a regular Joe Bloggs who got created into a god like representation by humans later on.
He existed in an Anti-Roman faction known as the Sons of God; who preached violent overthrow of the Roman oppressors. He, however, preached peaceful solutions. He did not even die on the cross, nor the same day as "removed". He did not resurrect himself, nor anybody else for that matter and died a natural death later on in life.
He was a regular Joe Bloggs who got created into a god like representation by humans later on.