I invite you to pick apart Christianity

[Mole]

You fail to take into account that Jesus died willingly.

I fail nothing mate.

And I quote Jesus himself to support me.

For Jesus said, "Father, let this cup pass from me".

But I guess your riposte might be, "Even the devil quotes the scriptures for his own purposes".

And if the devil gets into the act, who can we trust?

Can we trust a Father who wants us to love Him but tells us the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom?

Can we trust a Father who uses the very language of the child abuser who asks us to love someone we fear?

Or can we trust the devil?

But if we can't trust the devil and we can't trust Father, who can we trust?

 

[Argus]

God defines the price of love as unquestioning obedience. I would rather have the right to question, be an individual, and live in a world without love, than give up that right.

Well, the four main rules I don't accept are:

The defined role of women.
The rules condemning homosexuals and transsexuals as perverse.
The restrictions on divorce.
The condoning of slavery.

I don't know what else is in there right off the bat, but there are probably more that I disagree with.

1 John chapter 4 verse 10 says it like this "In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Propitiation is an unusual word in today’s society, it being confined normally to just a handful of theologians that seem to have little more to do with their time than to use long words that seem to confuse the issue. But the concept that propitiation conveys is vitally important for us to understand if we’re to grasp the fullness of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

It refers primarily to the process whereby someone’s wrath is either "averted" or "satisfied", resulting in "mercy" being received. The RSV’s rendering of the word with "expiation" obscures the true meaning for this word is interpreted as "making amends for a wrong".


I highly suggest you take a look at the video I posted, as it provides a keen insight on God's love. If at very least, watch it as a way to get more ammo.

I would also watch this short clip:
Mars Hill Church | Doctrine | Cross: God Dies | Does the Cross Contradict God's Love?


and Victor, the video also addresses your stance of what happened on the cross was child abuse.

 

[Athenian200]

1 John chapter 4 verse 10 says it like this "In this is love not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Propitiation is an unusual word in today’s society, it being confined normally to just a handful of theologians that seem to have little more to do with their time than to use long words that seem to confuse the issue. But the concept that propitiation conveys is vitally important for us to understand if we’re to grasp the fullness of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

It refers primarily to the process whereby someone’s wrath is either "averted" or "satisfied", resulting in "mercy" being received. The RSV’s rendering of the word with "expiation" obscures the true meaning for this word is interpreted as "making amends for a wrong".


I highly suggest you take a look at the video I posted, as it provides a keen insight on God's love. If at very least, watch it as a way to get more ammo.

I would also watch this short clip:
Mars Hill Church | Doctrine | Cross: God Dies | Does the Cross Contradict God's Love?


and Victor, the video also addresses your stance of what happened on the cross was child abuse.

I really don't see how that's relevant, sorry. I know all about the rationales for why God's love is justified or good, and I'm tired of them.

I refuse to accept the four rules I listed, and thus I reject the entire concept and all its followers. It's monolithic and can't be rejected or accepted in pieces, so I reject it wholly.

 

[Argus]

I really don't see how that's relevant, sorry. I know all about the rationales for why God's love is justified or good, and I'm tired of them.

I refuse to accept the four rules I listed, and thus I reject the entire concept and all its followers. It's monolithic and can't be rejected or accepted in pieces, so I reject it wholly.

That's because I didn't address "those four rules".

Any comments on the part I did address? (you defined love, then I gave you scripture which suggested another definition)

I didn't mean to dismiss it. In fact, I honestly don't have an answer worth giving. But I will do some research and ask some pastors about the subject if you actually want me to respond.

 

[Athenian200]

That's because I didn't address "those four rules".

Any comments on the part I did address? (you defined love, then I gave you scripture which suggested another definition)

I didn't mean to dismiss it. In fact, I honestly don't have an answer worth giving. But I will do some research and ask some pastors about the subject if you actually want me to respond.

There's not much point in responding to me.

I'm probably a demonic entity. Mwahaha!

 

[Mole]

Victor, the video also addresses your stance of what happened on the cross was child abuse.

It was blood sacrifice.

We have a whole history of sacrificing the best to propitiate the anger of the Father.

We offer the best of our crops, the best of our lambs and the best of our children in blood sacrifice.

Good heavens, Jesus is called the Lamb of God. Could it be anymore explicit?

Today blood sacrifice is against the Common Law.

So it seems grotesque to worship a Father who wants blood sacrifice.

And we are told today that the Mass is not a re-enactment of the blood sacrifice of barbaric times, but is an actual real blood sacrifice today.

And in Islam a blood sacrifice is performed solemnly every year with a goat.

And I hardly need point out that just 500 years ago the Aztecs were making human sacrifice on their pyramids at the rate of 25,000 a day.

And indeed Islam says that the blood of infidels and martyrs are pleasing to Allah. So mass murder and suicide bombing is a form of blood sacrifice to God.

It is now time to end the spilling of blood to gain the favour of God.

 

[Argus]

Entity? No.
Influenced? Yes.

 

[Argus]

Victor, I'm not quite sure what you're post was all about.

But aren't you glad it only had to happen once?

 

[Athenian200]

Entity? No.
Influenced? Yes.

Well, I'd rather be influenced by them than you. So there.

 

[Mole]

Victor, I'm not quite sure what you're post was all about.

But aren't you glad it only had to happen once?

It's emblematic.

Blood sacrifice has been happening for 200,000 years and it's still happening today.

Only yesterday in Peshawar a blood sacrifice of about 86 living people was made. And the martyrs that performed the blood sacrifice are now in heaven enjoying their 72 virgins, while the infidels are burning in hell.

But I do point out that it is illegal in Common Law counties, and those who are convicted of blood sacrifice are criminals.

So it seems odd to me that you are propagating the values and mores of criminality.

 

[Argus]

200,00 years, you don't say?
I surely hope what you're saying is done tough in cheek.


But seriously man come on, be some what relevant.

I once talked to this kid that wanted to sue God and said that because he couldn't it was a violation of church and state. You remind me of him.


Do you have anything useful to add?

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am sorry guys but Christianity simply does not make an sense at all.
The entire concept is simply full of logical holes.

 

[Mole]

200,00 years, you don't say?
I surely hope what you're saying is done tough in cheek.

But seriously man come on, be some what relevant.

I once talked to this kid that wanted to sue God and said that because he couldn't it was a violation of church and state. You remind me of him.

Do you have anything useful to add?

I am familiar with Christian Apologetics.

And I know it is a one way dialogue.

In fact it is simply another way of propagating the Faith.

It is a form of propaganda.

 

[Totenkindly]

Victor, I'm not quite sure what you're post was all about.

I think he was saying that if you step outside the context of your faith (because that's where you are right now -- you're just seeing Christianity through a particular set of eyes) and look at Christianity from the outside, to some people the blood/human sacrifices demanded by Christianity are barbaric.

Theology doesn't matter -- theology only works as a justification if you already accept all tenets of Christianity as true.

For someone who just looks at Christianity, they see that (1) blood sacrifices have been typical in barbaric societies over millenia and (2) nowadays if a parent murders their kid, saying it's a sacrifice to God, we lock them up and/or deem them "crazy." It's offensive in a lot of ways ... not because people are evil and trying to reject God, but protecting children is a morally good parental instinct. Just about every parent would rather die themselves than allow their children to be sacrificed.

But instead Christianity promotes God sacrificing his son -- even though Jesus begs off if possible, "sweating blood" due to the stress -- and we get the example of Abraham/Isaac (although at that point Isaac was probably a young man, not a kid, so the sacrifice was mutual and not parental abuse). Lutherans and some other Christian denoms claims that the wine of communion becomes Jesus' "real blood" via transubstantiation.

And Christians say we are supposed to emulate and express the heart of God. The "whys" do not matter to people outside Christianity; from the outside, it looks damned sick. The whole "communion" thing is why the Romans called early Christians cannibals and from their perspective they would have been correct.

Is it any wonder that people have issues with this? You need to step outside your own beliefs and theology if you want to grasp why people are taking issues with this sort of belief structure. As I mentioned in a response to you elsewhere today, the information you send through Ti is what determines outcome, but right now you're just sending "pro-Christian" ideas through and so you're not really grasping why people are having issues. You can still maintain your conclusions, but maybe putting yourself in someone else's mindframe would help you understand why they are saying these things.

 

[Take Five]

...
It is a form of propaganda.

Just like everything else you disagree with.

 

[Mole]

Just like everything else you disagree with.

"Propaganda", is a word invented by the Roman Catholic Church, as in "Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei", the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.

And I hardly need to tell you that, "Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei", was called, "The Inquisition".

So today we have propaganda contrasted with free scientific enquiry.

And we have propaganda contrasted with freedom of speech and thought.

And the Inquisition were thought police, par excellence. They believed in torturing the body to save the soul. And that is just what they did.

To be fair though, the Church as recently admitted the Inquisition was a mistake and apologised.

However it was a 'mistake' that lasted for six hundred years and left us with the word, "propaganda".

How odd you should take me to task for using it correctly.

 

[Take Five]

"Propaganda", is a word invented by the Roman Catholic Church, as in "Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei", the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.

And I hardly need to tell you that, "Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei", was called, "The Inquisition".

So today we have propaganda contrasted with free scientific enquiry.

And we have propaganda contrasted with freedom of speech and thought.

And the Inquisition were thought police, par excellence. They believed in torturing the body to save the soul. And that is just what they did.

To be fair though, the Church as recently admitted the Inquisition was a mistake and apologised.

However it was a 'mistake' that lasted for six hundred years and left us with the word, "propaganda".

How odd you should take me to task for using it correctly.

Knowing where a word came from doesn't mean you can apply it correctly. As in Christian Apologetics exist before the Inquisition and are not in general propaganda. I seem to recall you also claiming MBTI as propaganda. You'll have to excuse my doubts that you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm again taking this metaphorically, so it's not really an answer to your question. Historically, it's kind of important.

People used to sacrifice to gods all the time. In fact, in many translations, "god" means "one which we sacrifice to".. yeah. This symbolic act was, basically, God's way of making the "ultimate sacrifice" so that we no longer have to sacrifice to please gods.

So, why didn't God just decide that people didn't need to sacrifice to gods anymore?

In fact, if he wanted to, he could simply reimagine history such that no sacrifices to gods had ever been made. He can do that--he's God.

For that matter, he could whip himself up another son in a jiffy, since he's God and all.

I just really don't buy the concept of God as being 'forced' to do anything. "Ohh nooooo I have to choose between my son and humanity's salvation!!"

No, you don't. Just change the conditions governing the universe; you're God!

 

[thisGuy]

The "whys" do not matter to people outside Christianity; from the outside, it looks damned sick. The whole "communion" thing is why the Romans called early Christians cannibals and from their perspective they would have been correct.

That's the definition of ignorance. Its like a me telling you that aeroplanes are the proof that gravity doesn't exist.

That said, I agree with you in that knowing the answer is one thing. Getting it through your audiences' head is another

 

[garbage]

So, why didn't God just decide that people didn't need to sacrifice to gods anymore?

In fact, if he wanted to, he could simply reimagine history such that no sacrifices to gods had ever been made. He can do that--he's God.

For that matter, he could whip himself up another son in a jiffy, since he's God and all.

I just really don't buy the concept of God as being 'forced' to do anything. "Ohh nooooo I have to choose between my son and humanity's salvation!!"

No, you don't. Just change the conditions governing the universe; you're God!

Taken in a literal sense, I completely agree with you.

But as it stands, it does make for good allegory. If God just magically fixed our situation in the stories, we wouldn't exactly have any life lessons to learn from them.