... malevolent bully.

[charlou]

Topic split from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 29&start=0


This is off topic, sorry ... if it develops into a discussion I'll split it off ...

School culture too often resembles Lord of the Flies. The system of formal education itself and its environs nurtures dog eat dog competitiveness, with superficial character evaluation and oppressive stigmatisation, degrading the humanity within. I hate seeing so many kids destroyed by it.

Correct. But if I am this girl's father, she would have been pulled out of this school at the first sign of this level of bullying. Everyone failed her.

Bruce, the god you believe in, the biblical god, is a bully ... Christian religion uses this character to bully people into submission. The resulting morality/behaviour (level of personal conduct of each individual) are irrelevant to this - the fact is, the being described in the bible is, as has been so eloquently put: "... arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

And yet, people introduce their children to it and admonish faithful submission and worship.

[Bruce Burleson]

Bruce, the god you believe in, the biblical god, is a bully ... Christian religion uses this character to bully people into submission. The resulting morality/behaviour (level of personal conduct of each individual) are irrelevant to this - the fact is, the being described in the bible is, as has been so eloquently put: "... arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully."

And yet, people introduce their children to it and admonish faithful submission and worship.

Jesus does not fit this description at all. For me, the Old Testament description of God was colored by the barbaric nature of the people, and Jesus came in part to correct our perception of God. I read the OT to help me understand the historical and cultural context of the New Testament, but I don't consider it to give an accurate depiction of the nature of God. I rely almost completely on the NT portrayal of Jesus for my concept of the Deity.

[Toontown]

But the NT god inexplicably found it necessary to have his son tortured and nailed to a cross. Not for anything the son did, but ostensibly to make it possible for the god to forgive the flawed creatures the god created. Apparently the torture/murder of an innocent person puts the god in a forgiving mood.

This is not exactly a picture of a competent all knowing, all powerful deity. Or even a sane one.

[Bruce Burleson]

But the NT god inexplicably found it necessary to have his son tortured and nailed to a cross. Not for anything the son did, but ostensibly to make it possible for the god to forgive the flawed creatures the god created. Apparently the torture/murder of an innocent person puts the god in a forgiving mood.

This is not exactly a picture of a competent all knowing, all powerful deity. Or even a sane one.

I've even got a special spin for this. The crucifixion was not demanded by God (Paul kinds says so, but he was steeped in the OT theology and mindset of his day, so he can be forgiven and ignored on this point). It occurred simply because the Romans and the Jews and the Greeks and everyone else who lived back then were a bunch of mean bastards. But it did fit the OT sacrificial model, so God allowed it. It was as though he accommodated the Jewish mindset to get past the OT worldview. Like the Knights Who Say "Nee," we demanded a sacrifice, so God gave it to us. "OK, you want a sacrifice, here it is - now let's move on to a higher plane." It apparently worked, because since the crucifixion there has not been a great desire to sacrifice animals among believers. It is as though the cross satisfied that human desire to sacrifice for sin. And the sheep rejoiced.

[Coito ergo sum]

But the NT god inexplicably found it necessary to have his son tortured and nailed to a cross. Not for anything the son did, but ostensibly to make it possible for the god to forgive the flawed creatures the god created. Apparently the torture/murder of an innocent person puts the god in a forgiving mood.

This is not exactly a picture of a competent all knowing, all powerful deity. Or even a sane one.

I've even got a special spin for this. The crucifixion was not demanded by God (Paul kinds says so, but he was steeped in the OT theology and mindset of his day, so he can be forgiven and ignored on this point). It occurred simply because the Romans and the Jews and the Greeks and everyone else who lived back then were a bunch of mean bastards. But it did fit the OT sacrificial model, so God allowed it. It was as though he accommodated the Jewish mindset to get past the OT worldview. Like the Knights Who Say "Nee," we demanded a sacrifice, so God gave it to us. "OK, you want a sacrifice, here it is - now let's move on to a higher plane." It apparently worked, because since the crucifixion there has not been a great desire to sacrifice animals among believers. It is as though the cross satisfied that human desire to sacrifice for sin. And the sheep rejoiced.

Even Jews, who still follow the OT/Torah, don't sacrifice animals anymore. People moved on because of reason and the advancement of human knowledge, not because of an alleged crucifixion.

Point of fact, however: Nobody "demanded" a sacrifice. You say god said "o.k. you want a sacrifice - here it is!" Who was asking for a sacrifice? Certainly not the writers of the Old Testament, since the Messiahs mentioned in the Old Testament were not, at least as far as the OT says, sacrificial lambs or even coming to save souls at all. The Messiah was coming to free the people of Israel from bondage.

[Bruce Burleson]

Even Jews, who still follow the OT/Torah, don't sacrifice animals anymore. People moved on because of reason and the advancement of human knowledge, not because of an alleged crucifixion.

Point of fact, however: Nobody "demanded" a sacrifice. You say god said "o.k. you want a sacrifice - here it is!" Who was asking for a sacrifice? Certainly not the writers of the Old Testament, since the Messiahs mentioned in the Old Testament were not, at least as far as the OT says, sacrificial lambs or even coming to save souls at all. The Messiah was coming to free the people of Israel from bondage.

Jews stopped sacrificing because their temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Early Christians, who came out of sacrificial cults, whether Judaism or pagan, did not sacrifice. Pagans continued to sacrifice, and sacrifice is still a component of some religions. When I say "we demanded a sacrifice," I don't mean in any formal or written sense. I mean that the people of that time had a psychological need to sacrifice to assuage their sense of sin or to appease their god. The crucifixion of Jesus satisfied that itch once and for all for people coming out of those religions, so you don't find sacrifice as a component of Christianity (except in the Catholic mass, in which the host is the sacrifice - but that harkens back to Jesus' death). My point is that the crucifixion of Jesus put an end to that impulse for people who joined that faith. It served a psychological purpose for them, but was not demanded by God. The sacrificial concept of atonement is a part of Christian theology, but those who developed it were themselves coming out of sacrificial systems, such as Paul. Sacrifice was part of their religious mindset, and the crucifixion helped move them past that. After the crucifixion, there is no need to sacrifice - it's already been done.

[Toontown]

So it's up against the wall, redneck mothers
Mothers who have raised some punk-ass turds
And it's up against the wall, all you others
Just so I can have some rhyming words

And it's up against the wall, redneck Goddie
Goddie who has fucked up all the way
Spent seven thousand years culling monkeys
A real God could have done that in a day

Not that a real god would bother

And it's up against the wall, idiot Satan
If you get the monkeys, just what have you won?
Why not fixate on those fucking alien assholes?
Oh, I forgot - Klingons have a singularity gun

Not to mention cloaking devices

So it's up against the wall, all you lame-brains
From Goddie-Boy right on down to mom
Right down to the fucking little morons
They all had a hand in making dum

Yeah, I know it's supposed to be "dumb". Poetic license.

Now, if you really want to know the truth...

If God had wanted good monkeys, He would have made good monkeys. If God had wanted smart monkeys, He would have made smart monkeys. Obviously, He didn't want either.

Which doesn't explain anything, but it is obvious, isn't it? Maybe you can figure it out. I have no clue what this crazy God could be trying to do that's taking so long. They say He made the whole universe in seven days. But since then, He seems to have hit a snag.

But somehow, I just don't think...

"Shit. We are some sinful mutherfuckers. We better kill somebody before God gets pissed. Hey! Let's get that Jesus guy. He seems like a nice fellow."

...Is much of an explanation. I know they were mean, but were they really that stupid, and if so, how did they ever learn how to tie their shoes? Oh, I forgot. They wore sandals. But still, we know some of them could read and write. And they were the ones who dreamed up and wrote down all that stupid crap. Something just isn't adding up. Was the whole thing just a scam dreamed up by the smart literate guys, to fool and manipulate the benighted masses?

Oh well. Here we are in monkey hell, being highly critical of punk bully-monkeys.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Whatever that means...

[Coito ergo sum]

Even Jews, who still follow the OT/Torah, don't sacrifice animals anymore. People moved on because of reason and the advancement of human knowledge, not because of an alleged crucifixion.

Point of fact, however: Nobody "demanded" a sacrifice. You say god said "o.k. you want a sacrifice - here it is!" Who was asking for a sacrifice? Certainly not the writers of the Old Testament, since the Messiahs mentioned in the Old Testament were not, at least as far as the OT says, sacrificial lambs or even coming to save souls at all. The Messiah was coming to free the people of Israel from bondage.

Jews stopped sacrificing because their temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Early Christians, who came out of sacrificial cults, whether Judaism or pagan, did not sacrifice. Pagans continued to sacrifice, and sacrifice is still a component of some religions. When I say "we demanded a sacrifice," I don't mean in any formal or written sense. I mean that the people of that time had a psychological need to sacrifice to assuage their sense of sin or to appease their god.

Right, exactly. And, in OT days the Jews sacrified to Yahweh like the pagans sacrificed to their gods, and the Jews wrote in the Old Testament that it was their god that demanded sacrifices. Exhibit A: Abraham was specifically asked to take his son Isaac up to a blood soaked and reeking alter where other sacrifices had been made to the god, and slit his son's throat and bleed him to death. The god supposedly demanded that, not the people.

The crucifixion of Jesus satisfied that itch once and for all for people coming out of those religions, so you don't find sacrifice as a component of Christianity (except in the Catholic mass, in which the host is the sacrifice - but that harkens back to Jesus' death). My point is that the crucifixion of Jesus put an end to that impulse for people who joined that faith. It served a psychological purpose for them, but was not demanded by God.

Of course it was demanded by god. Nobody else demanded it. god needed sacrifices in OT days in order for people to atone for sins. The metaphor of the Jesus sacrifice is that Jesus becaem the "Lamb of God" that was a collective sacrifice atoning for all of our sins. The only one who needs that is the supposed god.

The sacrificial concept of atonement is a part of Christian theology, but those who developed it were themselves coming out of sacrificial systems, such as Paul. Sacrifice was part of their religious mindset, and the crucifixion helped move them past that. After the crucifixion, there is no need to sacrifice - it's already been done.

Right - that's why it was made up, because Jesus became the lamb of god, wholesale sacrificing for the sins of everyone as a vicarious atonement.

[Toontown]

Who is going to atone for God's sins? He is the father of all sin, having created all the sinners, starting with Satan.

Don't tell me, let me guess. All of us unrepentant unbelievers will get the sacrificial blade put to us. And we will suffer in Hell forever, because only a righteous god (who is really not a worse-than-Hitler sadist, but only seeks justice) would condemn people to an eternity of horrible suffering for doubting the existence of an invisible Man In The Sky. And in His righteousness, He will atone for creating all sinners by sacrificing us in this manner.

Hey. Makes perfect sense. If you're bad, kill somebody to make up for it. If you're a totally fucking evil supernatural bastard, torture billions for eternity to make up for being a totally evil bastard.

What. You don't see the logic? Well, that's why God is all-knowing and you're not. He can reason these things out, and you can't.

[Bruce Burleson]

Right, exactly. And, in OT days the Jews sacrified to Yahweh like the pagans sacrificed to their gods, and the Jews wrote in the Old Testament that it was their god that demanded sacrifices. Exhibit A: Abraham was specifically asked to take his son Isaac up to a blood soaked and reeking alter where other sacrifices had been made to the god, and slit his son's throat and bleed him to death. The god supposedly demanded that, not the people.

Abraham thought that is what God told him. It was really his own impulse to sacrifice. Then God accommodated the Jews by giving them his son, whom they sacrificed. It wasn't that God demanded it - it is that God accommodated the Jewish impulse to sacrifice. Under my theology, in any event.

Of course it was demanded by god. Nobody else demanded it. god needed sacrifices in OT days in order for people to atone for sins. The metaphor of the Jesus sacrifice is that Jesus becaem the "Lamb of God" that was a collective sacrifice atoning for all of our sins. The only one who needs that is the supposed god.

God didn't need it. The people needed to have a symbol, an ultimate sacrifice to be sure their sins were covered. So Jesus allowed them to kill him, knowing that his death would move his people past the primal urge to kill animals into a deeper spiritual relationship with him.

[Bruce Burleson]

Who is going to atone for God's sins? He is the father of all sin, having created all the sinners, starting with Satan.

Don't tell me, let me guess. All of us unrepentant unbelievers will get the sacrificial blade put to us. And we will suffer in Hell forever, because only a righteous god (who is really not a worse-than-Hitler sadist, but only seeks justice) would condemn people to an eternity of horrible suffering for doubting the existence of an invisible Man In The Sky. And in His righteousness, He will atone for creating all sinners by sacrificing us in this manner.

Hey. Makes perfect sense. If you're bad, kill somebody to make up for it. If you're a totally fucking evil supernatural bastard, torture billions for eternity to make up for being a totally evil bastard.

What. You don't see the logic? Well, that's why God is all-knowing and you're not. He can reason these things out, and you can't.

I don't think anyone suffers in hell forever. The worst that can happen is annihilation, and that's what you are expecting anyway. Jesus came to save men's lives, not destroy them.

[Trolldor]

What you believe does not tie in with Christian ideology or what the bible states.

[Azathoth]

Right, exactly. And, in OT days the Jews sacrified to Yahweh like the pagans sacrificed to their gods, and the Jews wrote in the Old Testament that it was their god that demanded sacrifices. Exhibit A: Abraham was specifically asked to take his son Isaac up to a blood soaked and reeking alter where other sacrifices had been made to the god, and slit his son's throat and bleed him to death. The god supposedly demanded that, not the people.

Abraham thought that is what God told him. It was really his own impulse to sacrifice. Then God accommodated the Jews by giving them his son, whom they sacrificed. It wasn't that God demanded it - it is that God accommodated the Jewish impulse to sacrifice. Under my theology, in any event.

OK so you admit Abraham was insane. Why not go one step further and realise that it is all a bunch of schitzophrenic ravings at best and crowd control by a priestly class at worst.

[Toontown]

Who is going to atone for God's sins? He is the father of all sin, having created all the sinners, starting with Satan.

Don't tell me, let me guess. All of us unrepentant unbelievers will get the sacrificial blade put to us. And we will suffer in Hell forever, because only a righteous god (who is really not a worse-than-Hitler sadist, but only seeks justice) would condemn people to an eternity of horrible suffering for doubting the existence of an invisible Man In The Sky. And in His righteousness, He will atone for creating all sinners by sacrificing us in this manner.

Hey. Makes perfect sense. If you're bad, kill somebody to make up for it. If you're a totally fucking evil supernatural bastard, torture billions for eternity to make up for being a totally evil bastard.

What. You don't see the logic? Well, that's why God is all-knowing and you're not. He can reason these things out, and you can't.

I don't think anyone suffers in hell forever. The worst that can happen is annihilation, and that's what you are expecting anyway. Jesus came to save men's lives, not destroy them.

Seems to me the more sensible, and certainly less painful way to save mens' lives would be to create them in such a way that they would not offend the overly sensitive Deity and would thus not need to be annihilated.

But these supernatural people are odd ducks. They reason and work in strange and mysterious ways.

[Feck]

The Jews mostly stopped the sacrificing to their blood and sex obsessed god a long time before JC .


And Yet again Cherry picking the bits from a 'Holy' book to agree with how you think is typical ......

God did not make man in his image Men just self- reference .

If you are going to decide your own Ethics because you think mankind has advanced beyond Biblical Barbarity you are totally right . Now just get rid of the rest of the faith that makes no sense and you are left as a humanist


You don't need the WOO ...