Orange Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Seems like a very one-sided understanding of Christianity and Islam. Besides what Jesus (if he was real and really was the son of God) did wasn't good, it was deeply immoral and stupid. At least in the view you're describing Islam is not as full of trickery. ' Besides what Jesus (if he was real and really was the son of God) did wasn't good, it was deeply immoral and stupid' Yikes! Why do you make that assertion? That's probably worth a seperate thread in its own right. Over to you. Have a watch of Zeitgeist: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197# Look forward to the conversation afterwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Have a watch of Zeitgeist: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197# Look forward to the conversation afterwards... I’m aware of Zeitgeist, its meaning, and the history of the film of the same name, but what has that got to do with the claim made by LDV that what Jesus did wasn't good, and was deeply immoral and stupid? If I look at the recorded words and actions of Jesus, even sticking to the version that emerged from the horse-trading between State and emerging Roman Catholic church that took placed at the Council of Nicaea, those things that Jesus said and did could hardly be called deeply immoral or stupid. I really do think this is worth a separate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 From what I understand, both God and Jesus were in favour of slavery. Not very moral to me. Fact is that the vast majority of people are actually more moral than Jesus and God. You would have to be a completely despicable person to have worse morals than God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Deeply Immoral - I think the very idea that God sends/allows his supposedly innocent son to be sacrificed for the sins of OTHER people to be grossly immoral. Why should an innocent person be called upon to die to that SUPPOSED wrongdoers should be free of their sins. And I find it deeply immoral that people should be made thankful for his sacrifice. Stupid - God creates man, God lets his children eat from the tree of knowledge when they have no knowledge of right and wrong, God ensures that they have something called 'original sin' for their apparent wrongdoings and all Gods children carry it - they are therefore dirty and , then Jesus turns up to sacrifice himself so everything can be happy but crucially grateful that this has happened. God created the idea of this sin carried on from father and son and then send his son to die in order to sort out this problem he made. Immoral and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I really do think this is worth a separate thread. You mean something along the lines of: 'What kind of loving, caring omnipotent god has been around forever yet has only managed to produce one - illegitimate - child, who he allowed to be crucified'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I really do think this is worth a separate thread. Well start one. Christopher Hitchens has a pretty good go explaining the immorality or stupidity here ( , ) - while being parried by an idiot, but Hitchens could help that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Yeah, I think he discusses vicarious redemption on a few of his videos on Youtube. I do love the way Hitchens argues. He is so eloquent and often really funny. The 'Atheist Experience' videos on Youtube are fun and interesting to watch too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I’m aware of Zeitgeist, its meaning, and the history of the film of the same name, but what has that got to do with the claim made by LDV that what Jesus did wasn't good, and was deeply immoral and stupid? How could someone who did not exist be immoral and stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Well I am just pretending God and Jesus exist/existed because so many think they did and think that religion establishes morality or is a good source for morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I really do think this is worth a separate thread. You mean something along the lines of: 'What kind of loving, caring omnipotent god has been around forever yet has only managed to produce one - illegitimate - child, who he allowed to be crucified'? There is no evidence to suggest that crucifying a child does it any harm in later life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Really? Jesus knew it was coming and turned out to be a nasty prick! Wasn't it Jesus that said that those who do not repent for their sins go to hell? Not very nice and very twisted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Deeply Immoral - I think the very idea that God sends/allows his supposedly innocent son to be sacrificed for the sins of OTHER people to be grossly immoral. So let’s start with The Trinity. Big G, J.C. and ‘Ol Spooky. Probably better known as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. What many non Christians don’t grasp is that The Trinity is in fact a single entity with three simultaneous representations. With that in mind having God represent himself as the means incarnate whereby man could, by believing in Him, taking on the responsibility to do his best to live in the way that Jesus taught and demonstrated, and accepting that by so doing he could also ‘wipe his slate clean’ of past sins how could there possibly be any immorality involved? Add to that a continued ‘wiping of the slate’ if the saved soul genuinely regretted if he sinned in the future and did his best to redress any harm he had caused and try not to repeat sin. All in all it sounds a good deal to me. Why should an innocent person be called upon to die to that SUPPOSED wrongdoers should be free of their sins. How about because the part of The Trinity that represented the Perfect embodiment of man wanted to do so as a gift and to save man from the wrongful actions consequential from mans own free will? And I find it deeply immoral that people should be made thankful for his sacrifice. Why? That notional sacrifice was a part of the greatest news that anyone could ever receive! That there was a way to gain paradise and to live at peace with yourself, with your fellow man, and to do the will of God. Stupid - God creates man, God lets his children eat from the tree of knowledge when they have no knowledge of right and wrong, God ensures that they have something called 'original sin' for their apparent wrongdoings and all Gods children carry it - they are therefore dirty and , then Jesus turns up to sacrifice himself so everything can be happy but crucially grateful that this has happened. Not stupid, a way of allowing man to determine if he would choose the path or rightness or the path of sin. That freedom of choice allowed man who was after all created in the image of god in more ways than one, to choose between good and evil. The tree of knowledge? A choice offered to man in order for his free will to be tested. God created the idea of this sin carried on from father and son and then send his son to die in order to sort out this problem he made. Not so. The ‘visiting of the sins of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation’ is not about great granddad being a bit of a lad and young Fred having the ‘Mark of Cain’ on him (though it might be thought that the way family reputations sometimes linger on the Island). Instead it was about if you don’t get it right then nor will your kids nor theirs. Immoral and stupid. Not when you look beyond the way it seems when read in a strictly secular manner. Just a word about ‘sin’. There is no such word in The Pentateuch that matches ‘sin’ in the way that it is used in today’s English, nor in the Christian Bible. Instead we have the word ‘het’ which translates into make an error and has no association with committing an act of evil. That is dealt with separately. No less rigorously, but separately. In the Greek the word ‘het’ was mistranslated as ‘missing the target’, and so eventually became further distorted in meaning. Sin as an act of evil is a strictly Christian concept, though the evil consequences of ‘het’ are not. Another Christian concept is the existence of hell, and especially Purgatory which is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. Hey LDV, PLEASE start a new thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Really? Jesus knew it was coming and turned out to be a nasty prick! Wasn't it Jesus that said that those who do not repent for their sins go to hell? Not very nice and very twisted Ah, but did he not also say "the contents of the bible is entirely a work of creative fiction and any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 [Paraphrased:] how could there possibly be any immorality involved .. in .. having God represent himself as the means incarnate whereby man could, by believing in Him, taking on the responsibility to do his best to live in the way that Jesus taught and demonstrated, and accepting that by so doing he could also ‘wipe his slate clean’ of past sins. Add to that a continued ‘wiping of the slate’ if the saved soul genuinely regretted if he sinned in the future and did his best to redress any harm he had caused and try not to repeat sin. All in all it sounds a good deal to me. Rog, I realize your heritage, but do you really believe any of this hogwash? Sure enforcing a false meme may have social advantages - and you can argue about the pros and cons - but do you really believe any of this is a true meme, or a socially useful false one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Rog, I realize your heritage, but do you really believe any of this hogwash? LOL! That’s a good question! No, I personally don’t, but bear in mind that since I’ve spent the best part of 55 years studying first Judaism and the best part of fifty years studying Christianity and then Islam as comparative religions I do feel able to offer a perspective of how those who DO believe it see life. As for memes, I just wish the world could experience a sudden and total bout of amnesia where memes involving religion are concerned. Far too often religion is mistaken for being the source of good morality when the best that the best can or rather should claim is nothing more than a repository of some good morality. Note the use of the word ‘some’! There's an old saying amongst old atheists. 'If God created man, then man has obviously returned the favour'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.