The trolling response is obvious if you grew up around teenagers playing with this idea:
- Men developed faster than women.
- Men started as women in the womb then were able to develop past it.
- God created a first draft in Adam, then said “i bet I could do it better a 2nd time, and I won’t start from scratch this time”
- There is always a first child when it comes to siblings. “rolls eyes”
- Well Adam was the first, so there was no bloodlust. Due to eating the fruit, well there was a grudge match scheduled for having the time-out from paradise and introduction of death/bad/good/children - The terms of the grudge match were laid out: fruit of the woman to crush the snake.
I’m not religious but seems pedantic. God didn’t consider Adam his son. It was just a creation. Jesus is his son, which is something that has to be made “with” a person apparently.
Also I still ascribe to the belief that old testament god and new testament god are different characters.
God didn’t consider Adam his son. It was just a creation. Jesus is his son, which is something that has to be made “with” a person apparently.
If you get into the catechism, there is a very explicit attempt by both the Catholics and the Gnostics to claim Adam and Jesus are iterations of the same original concept of a perfected man. The gnostics get extra funky with it, claiming that there are a host of good and evil spiritual beings constantly at struggle with one another. And Adam and Jesus are iterations of this struggle, as these countervailing forces tangle up with one another. The Catholics just cut through it all and insist “There’s one God and he’s always winning and anything that looks like its going bad is just part of his plan because he can’t lose”.
But if you get into Revelations, you see a lot more of the Gnostic theory leak in. And if you actually start digging into Gnostic texts, you end up with something more akin to Zoroastrianism than modern Christianity.
Also I still ascribe to the belief that old testament god and new testament god are different characters.
They definitely aren’t written consistently. But how else did you think a 4000 year old chain letter was going to shake out?
Yeah the idea with Jesus is he was supposed to enter the world like a normal person, be raised by parents, etc. There’s a theological concept of him being god experiencing humanity fully, that includes temporarily being cut off from things like omniscience
That obviously means that god is a woman, right?
The question really starts before that. Yahweh is supposed to be “omnipotent” or “all powerful”. So, why was The Christ necessary at all? If Yahweh could shape reality just by saying things and they became real, couldn’t he just say “I forgive you” and “Original Sin” would be forgiven?
So either Yahweh isn’t all powerful and there is some greater power to which he is subservient; or, Yahweh just wanted to dip his dick in an unwilling woman to create his son/self to torture to death. All hail Yahweh!
So, why was The Christ necessary at all?
The straightforward answer is that Christ was the right tool for the job.
If Yahweh could shape reality just by saying things and they became real, couldn’t he just say “I forgive you” and “Original Sin” would be forgiven?
That is a thing Jesus repeated ad nauseam in his ministries. And since he’s an Avatar of God, this is exactly what happened.
So either Yahweh isn’t all powerful and there is some greater power to which he is subservient; or, Yahweh just wanted to dip his dick in an unwilling woman to create his son/self to torture to death.
This is an age-old paradox of language. “Can God create a bolder so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either way, he must not be All Powerful!”
But it limits the way we look at the world to an entirely and superficially magical one. The idea of God as a Wizard in a big crooked hat who says strange words and waves hands and makes a thing happen.
Consider… This paradox is solved without any magical powers. A man with a chisel and a large lump of stone can create a bolder too big for him to lift my main strength. But then that same man can build a lever/pull system to lift said bolder. He has done both! Therefore man is All-Powerful!
God’s favored discipline agreed to bare a child. And that child agreed to martyr himself in order to bring about a Christian faith. And that faith exists to bring light and hope and joy to the world. And its easy enough to find a Christian who can attest to that sense of hopefulness through their faithfulness. A seed planted 2000 years ago gives birth to a forest. Feels miraculous to me.
That gets to the problem with these logical angles of attack on a religious belief. They’ve all been done to death for a thousand years and more. And there are rhetorical rebuttals for any smug one-liner either side can bring to the table. But you can’t logic someone out of a view they didn’t logic themselves into. The idea of Jesus as a spiritual martyr who provides relief for your guilt and inner turmoil isn’t something you can refute casually. Its like arguing with a homopath over the effectiveness of microdosing or with a yogi over the spiritual benefits of meditation.
At the end of the day, all you’re saying is “This shouldn’t make you feel better!” And all they need to refute you is “Ah, but it does.”
I mean you last line sums it up, If on your balance you can weight the sum total of human systematic logical effort against your anecdotal experience then what is the point of discussion at all?
And you want to know when that looks really ugly? When the faithful see things like “the light and hope brought by faith” and are blind to rivers of blood and human suffering that have not ceased to this day enabled and perpetuated by faith.
It doesn’t matter if there is a god, by the things done in God’s name the concept of faith must be reject for humanities sake.
If on your balance you can weight the sum total of human systematic logical effort
These are George Carlin quips, not exhaustive mathematical proofs.
When the faithful see things like “the light and hope brought by faith” and are blind to rivers of blood and human suffering that have not ceased to this day enabled and perpetuated by faith.
The blood and suffering flow as quickly from the machine logic of a Randroid Atheist as any Theocrat. Blaming a religious figment for natural disasters and manufactured cruelties is no more logical than attributing charity and compassion to the magic sky fairy.
the things done in God’s name the concept of faith must be reject for humanities sake.
That doesn’t logically follow.
Christ alive (hehe) you kinda missed the purpose of the New Testament didn’t you?
Jesus was the last child sacrifice.
That’s the story.
That’s the crucifixion in its entirety.
The rest is shoehorned in AND the best part of it none of it actually happened and there is no record of it except for second hand accounts generations later.
So one of the things Roman’s were really good at, records, didn’t record a Jesus being crucified.
It didn’t happen.
Apparently bro has a pretty serious code of conduct and adheres to it to a T
The thing is how you want to view it.
Option 1:
Neutral view of religion and history.
People tried to explain their existence and what they could observe. The Bible is just a big collection of stories that tried to explain their understanding of the world. Why it is how it is and who made it and why they made it like that. Why they have to suffer and can have fun…
Option 2:
Overall religious.
God is omnipotent but likes to do shit in a weird way for a reason. This is fine because this is important for some reason and not only what the result in the end is important but the way to it too. Gods decision is always the best.
Option 3:
Sarcastic
God is an asshole who just likes to play with the humans from time to time. Nothing he does is needed to make sense. He could in an instant remove all our problems and create a world where there is no need to suffer. However that would be boring. I mean look around most humans are assholes and we are being created in the image of God.
The way you are confident that you have covered all arguments is a little grating on me. From my understanding of philosophy and christianity, there is another option, but your extremely broad strokes in “option 2” i guess encapsulates it because it explains all actions and reasons for actions as “weird” and “important for some reason” when describing both the process and the destination.
Option 4:
Kicking the kids out after they should be legal adults
God had a ton of kids. He didn’t want them to have failure to launch, so he set up them to have “knowledge of good and evil” and imperfect parents then each of god’s kids (now with bodies as humans) have the choice to act as a moral agent. Moral agents can choose to be dicks or altruistic. The best humans get to be “joint heirs with Christ” and inherit all that Christ inherits. The rest… fail to launch and ultimately get a really nice bedroom and computer but that’s about it. The kicked-out kid’s perspective on their parent right after getting kicked out is extremely mixed.
A person with a background in philosophy ought to be able to make a good faith (hehe) argument that God is not benevolent in any capacity and is doing the same as a toddler in a sandbox.
I had a professor make that exact argument… or perhaps he was quoting an argument of one of the greats. Anyway, the argument goes like this:
- if there is evil, and god has the power to stop it, but he doesnt due to his knowledge, then he is not omnicient
- if there is evil, and god has the power to stop it, but he doesnt and he has all knowledge, then he is evil
- if there is evil, and god does not have the power to stop it, then he is impotent
The first person then smugly smiles that they put God into a box and waits to hear the mental gymnastics from the Christian Philosopher.
The christian philosopher then brings up a few points that were straw manned:
- incomplete understanding of whether what we are seeing is “evil”
- the illusion of choice - are we simply clocks that were preprogrammed back when the big bang occured? Can a clock have “evil” within it?
- moral agents with ability to make meaningful choices - The actions of the omnipotent being (God) are tied by pesky rules regarding choice because the being (God) could eliminate choice: the being could choose the perfect stimuli to create an exact copy of an ideal AI in a bio-mechanical body instead of moral agents who choose to be a dick or not. Therefore, if this fact pattern is reality, then there must be “something special” about being a moral agent and having a relationship albeit distant with an Omnipotent being.
The philosophers then keep asking questions to reduce the opponents argument until they conclude with the following question: “What is?” then they leave as friends.
Let’s just be honest here,
They kinda gloss over exactly how Mary got preggo.
I’m just wondering, did he pull a Zeus and show up as one variety of animal or another?
Virgin in this context means unwed.
But good luck convincing a Christian of that ;-)
Do you have a source on your claim? Why do you say this when it’s completely false? You are spreading misinformation.
Source:
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
Parthenos Definition
NAS Word Usage - Total: 15
a virgin
a marriageable maiden
a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
one's marriageable daughter
a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
one who has never had intercourse with women
Virgin birth was meant as born without sin. So she did the mortal nasty
Which makes the whole Religious Right trying to paint it as her being magically pregnant all so they can make sex ebil even more hilarious
Do you have a source on your claim? Why do you say this when it’s completely false? You are spreading misinformation.
Source:
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
Parthenos Definition
NAS Word Usage - Total: 15
a virgin
a marriageable maiden
a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
one's marriageable daughter
a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
one who has never had intercourse with women
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
There’s your answer.
I mean… Jesus DID had brothers and sisters, both from the same mother and some side work Joseph had with another woman.
Sin eventually caught up.
“The angel came in unto her.”
Interpret that as you will.
-
The angel came through the door and into her abode?
-
Or the angel CAME into her vagina?
I’ve had a lot more fun with Bible stories since I started subbing in “teenage Jewish hoodlums who know how to get shit done” every time “an angel of the Lord* appeared. I mean, why would actual magical angels need blood painted on doors to know which houses to avoid? Hoodlums, however, can use a code like that. Or how about removing the tombstone and telling the Marys " why do you look for the living amongst the dead?” That’s a place for a bunch of enthusiastic, anti-empire teenagers if I ever saw one.
