Shouldn't god be disappointed in jesus?

[Dr Lou Natic]

Jesus wasn't exactly a chip off the old block was he?
Well, thats exactly what he was, but really fathers usually expect their sons to be comprable to them, or better.
Jesus could do a few magic tricks and fix people, which to us seems pretty cool, but to god thats got to be positively mundane right?
Its like if I had a son who could walk and breath, but thats about it. I'd be a little disappointed he didn't retain any more of my traits.
You would expect god's son to maybe create an alternate universe, that was more modern and in many ways exceeded the original. But he never got close to being that successfull. Jesus was really the holy entity equivalent to the dead beat son who sits on the couch all day watching sitcom reruns and smoking pot.
Maybe thats why the jews refused to acknowledge him? He was a disgrace, an embarrassment to god's family.

 

[Tiassa]

Its like if I had a son who could walk and breath, but thats about it. I'd be a little disappointed he didn't retain any more of my traits.

You'd be less disappointed if your son was a stalk of celery. After all, celery that can walk and breathe?

 

[glaucon]

Well.... I'm no specialist here buut.... In a word, I'd say nope.
First, according to dogma both god and jesus are one and the same so, technically he'd have to be disappointed with himself.
Second, being omniscient, he would have known what was going to happen, ergo, no disappointment.

 

[mis-t-highs]

glaucon: then why have jesus born, in the first place, for what reason, what did god gain nothing, it was a pointless venture.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

mis-t-highs: then why have jesus born, in the first place, for what reason, what did god gain nothing, it was a pointless venture.
*************
M*W: Yes, the whole idea of it is a "pointless venture," but there are still many educated researchers, scientists and biblical archeologists out there continuing to look for whatever they can find to prove the bible myths. Fortunately, for 75% of the world's population, the truth is pretty obvious.

 

[one_raven]

Fortunately, for 75% of the world's population, the truth is pretty obvious.

Ummmm... Who are you referring to that is 75% of the world's population?
What, may I ask, is this obvious truth? I ask, because so many things that seem to be obvious to you seem quite ludicrous to me, and most everyone I have ever met.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

one_raven: Ummmm... Who are you referring to that is 75% of the world's population? What, may I ask, is this obvious truth? I ask, because so many things that seem to be obvious to you seem quite ludicrous to me, and most everyone I have ever met.
*************
M*W: The world's population of all non-Christian religions were comprised of about 67% in 2002, when the study was done. With Christianity declining worldwide, today the statistics would be about 75% of the world's population are non-Christian. That is what I referred to as the "obvious truth."

Regarding your snide comment, we obviously don't hang in the same circles outside of sciforums, so I don't know who you have met that thinks what I write is ludicrous, and personally, I don't care. I'm not on sciforums to win friends and influence people. If you don't like what I write, don't read my posts. It's that simple. We all come to sciforums from a different perspective that should make for interesting discussions. I write what I believe to be true from the reading and research I have done. Obviously, if I researched computer science or math and technology, I would be writing on different forums. I write on the religion forum, because that has been my area of interest for the past 26 years of anti-Christianity.

 

[one_raven]

It wasn't a snide comment at all, simply a statement of fact for clarification.
I said nothing about not wanting different perspectives, in fact, that's precicely WHY I come here.
There's really no need to be so defensive.
I didn't say anything negative about you, I was simply stating that a lot of the theories you talk about come completely out of left field, and either I never heard of them before, or I have heard that they were entirely rejected by the majority of researchers.
I think you can admit to that, can't you?
Hell, I'd even expect you'd be proud of that.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

one_raven: It wasn't a snide comment at all, simply a statement of fact for clarification.
I said nothing about not wanting different perspectives, in fact, that's precicely WHY I come here.
There's really no need to be so defensive.
I didn't say anything negative about you, I was simply stating that a lot of the theories you talk about come completely out of left field, and either I never heard of them before, or I have heard that they were entirely rejected by the majority of researchers.
I think you can admit to that, can't you?
Hell, I'd even expect you'd be proud of that.
*************
M*W: What specifically have I said that has been rejected by a majority of researchers? That would depend, of course, if they were Christian researchers or non-Christian researchers. I'm sure you could find thousands if not millions of Christian researchers who would fervently reject my views. And, you're right, I am proud of that.