Was Jesus a suicide?

[articul8]

Very convenient - by definition God's ways are unknowable (by us). Therefore they cannot be criticised.

But Jesus seems to imply that "error" exists qua error. Why? What allows for the possibility of an omnipotent God producing creatures that fuck up? If he got lonely (fair do's) why not make us lot perfect too?

 

[kakuma]

He's probably just got the hump 'coz he realises he picked the wrong religion.

Don't despair, Phil, it's never too late to become a Pastafarian...

"the answer was.....the quakers!!!"

Jesus martyred himself but he's the same person as God

wasn't the devil one of gods mates or summat?

 

[kyser_soze]

Jesus Christ said "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." and "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".

Wish you were on your way to actually MEETING your sky pixie...

 

[phildwyer]

phil finds it all deeply unfunny because he's a God botherer who takes desert-based fairy stories about a vindictive, capricious deity seriously.

Anyone who does not take the Bible seriously is a fool. But to take it seriously is *not* to take it literally. In fact, *that* is why your joke is so stupid: it presupposes that religious belief is literalistic. It assumes that belief in God is of the same nature as belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Loch Ness Monster. Only an ignorant person would assume this.

 

[RhymnRzn]

articul8 sez:

Very convenient - by definition God's ways are unknowable (by us). Therefore they cannot be criticised.

But Jesus seems to imply that "error" exists qua error. Why? What allows for the possibility of an omnipotent God producing creatures that fuck up? If he got lonely (fair do's) why not make us lot perfect too?

......reminds me of "why hast thou made me thus?" and "what begettest thou?"..........

No, his ways are revealed and knowable to us, and we err if we opt to not know them. There is no justified criticism when it comes to the facts.

No doubt God is perfect, and Jesus at the right hand of God above all. The Holy Bible shows the good and right way that no man can disannul: and to continue in the word justifies from many imperfections, as God pardons who he reserves.

Here is a good word:

Psalm 19:7

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (v.8) The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (v.9) The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. (v.10) More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (v.11) Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (v.12) Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. (v.13) Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. (v.14) Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer."


kyser soze sez:

Wish you were on your way to actually MEETING your sky pixie...

If I was you, I would take heed to myself, to make sure I wish no brother any hurt, or evil. Every eye will see Jesus.

 

[Belushi]

It assumes that belief in God is of the same nature as belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Loch Ness Monster. Only an ignorant person would assume this.

I know I'm gonna regret this but why do you think that Phil? What would you say the difference is between believing in God and believing in the tooth fairy?

 

[phildwyer]

I know I'm gonna regret this but why do you think that Phil? What would you say the difference is between believing in God and believing in the tooth fairy?

Because God's not a material creature who may or may not exist, like what the Tooth Fairy is. He's not a creature at all: He's the Creator. So all "believing in God" means is believing that existence has an ultimate cause or meaning. That there is some significance to existence, rather than none. That's *it.* It doesn't mean believing that there's an old man with a long white beard sitting on a fucking cloud. Quite how this became such a controversial belief is an interesting topic (don't get me started). But suffice it to say that Kaiser's foolish joke shows an ignorance of religion so profound as to approach the complete.

 

[kyser_soze]

Don't be such a pompous ass because your superstition is being questioned phil. There is as much likelihhood of 'god' existing as the tooth fairy - there is no difference AFAIC because I'm an atheist and your whole 'The universe is evidence of God' argument simply doesn't wash.

If I started a religious belief system based around a swing bin that I believe is the incarnation of the creator I've got a religion. If I start a faitbh based around a spaghetti monster I've got a religion. Unless of course you're arguing that the material universe itself is God? In which case he's a material creation as much as the tooth fairy.

God - a catch all explanation for 'Why', just as easily answered by anything you replace it with.

And Phil - don't bother coming out with your half assed twaddle about this. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR, divine or otherwise. That you do is your concern, but don't try and tell me I don't understand religion because I choose the swing bin/spaghetti monster to your version (whatever that may be) of 'God'...it's like discussing fela's Universal Truth and failure or language discussing this with you.

Now trot back to Church with Rymnrzan and attend a bible study class...

 

[Yossarian]

Here is a good word:

Psalm 19:7...

That's not a good word, you Bible-bashing freak, it's a whole shitload of words, none of them anything special.

Brobdingnagian. Now *that's* a good word.

 

[kyser_soze]

That's not a good word, you Bible-bashing freak, it's a whole shitload of words, none of them anything special.

Brobdingnagian. Now *that's* a good word.

'Yahoos' is another good word, and an apposite one in the case of rhymnrzan

 

[RhymnRzn]

yossarian utters:

That's not a good word, you Bible-bashing freak, it's a whole shitload of words, none of them anything special.

Brobdingnagian. Now *that's* a good word.

Show some grace, and some reverence for the ancient wisdom: the men who God will glorify suffered many things for us to recieve the words of God, the Gospel of our salvation. There's nothing unsavory about it, as it's written "his commandments are not grievous".

 

[kyser_soze]

yossarian utters:


Show some grace, and some reverence for the ancient wisdom: the men who God will glorify suffered many things for us to recieve the words of God, the Gospel of our salvation. There's nothing unsavory about it, as it's written "his commandments are not grievous".

Oh shut up.

 

[Batboy]

I think that he was killed legally under the laws of the time for preaching religious hatred (saying there was only one true God), preventing free trade (throwing money lenders out of their place of business), Not handing over to the Authorities any keys he may have had (Regulation of investigatory power act; keys to gates of heaven), the guy was an out and out criminal who tried to destroy the way of life thousands of people. Proper little anarkid he was, respect to the little fellow and his stupid hair do, definitely with who ever said there was some really poor parenting going on. Who the fuck tells their son they have to die to save humanity FFS?

So in todays terms Jesus would be an asbo?

 

[Yossarian]

Show some grace, and some reverence for the ancient wisdom: the men who God will glorify suffered many things for us to recieve the words of God, the Gospel of our salvation. There's nothing unsavory about it, as it's written "his commandments are not grievous".

Fuck off. The Bible's not even good enough to wipe my arse on - the pages are far too thin.

 

[kyser_soze]

No absorbancy. I had a curry last night and had to use half of Deuteronomy to clear the muck.

 

[Belushi]

Fuck off. The Bible's not even good enough to wipe my arse on - the pages are far too thin.

Handy for spliffs if your in jail and out of papers apparently.

 

[angry bob]

Fuck off. The Bible's not even good enough to wipe my arse on - the pages are far too thin.

Get a grip man.

Whether or not the bible's "true" or not, it's an incredible piece of literature. Some of the stories in Genesis alone are amazingly well constructed.

It's also got a lot to say from a historical point of view. Much of which has been independently confirmed.

Whether or not it points to the existence of a god is besides my point. It is a document of immense value to humanity.

Your dismissal strikes me as ill concieved and childish.

 

[Yossarian]

Ecclesiastes and a couple of Psalms are OK - that's hardly value for money when the damn thing's about 50,000 pages long!

 

[angry bob]

Don't be such a pompous ass because your superstition is being questioned phil. There is as much likelihhood of 'god' existing as the tooth fairy - there is no difference AFAIC because I'm an atheist and your whole 'The universe is evidence of God' argument simply doesn't wash.

You being an atheist shouldn't preclude you from understanding the philosophical differences between god and the tooth fairy.

How are you evaluating the two likelihoods? You've arrived at the conclusion that they are equal so you must have some rational behind it.

Now I don't believe in a god myself ... but I am capable of distinguishing between theism and belief in santa claus. To dismiss the views of so many people and so many great thinkers and so many great scientists as childish fantasy strikes me as rather arrogant.

And for this reason the giant spagetti monster really is a very tired and unamusing metaphor.

 

[angry bob]

Ecclesiastes and a couple of Psalms are OK - that's hardly value for money when the damn thing's about 50,000 pages long!

So you give it a little credit then?

Although I'd agree that much of the bible is rather dull (all those instructions for living in the desert for example) and much of it has been horribly mutilated over its thousands of years of existence, it still has enormous value to humanity. You might aswell wipe yourself with the works of Shakespere or Galileo.

(and the bible's really not expensive!)

 

[Yossarian]

It may have some value as a historical curiosity - but that value was massively & artificially inflated when the Christian Bishop Theodophilus burnt the Great Library at Alexandria.

 

[angry bob]

It may have some value as a historical curiosity - but that value was massively & artificially inflated when the Christian Bishop Theodophilus burnt the Great Library at Alexandria.

What do you mean curiousity?

The bible itself is a curiousity?

There is a lot of history in the bible. The value of the bible as a record may have been inflated (artificially implies that this was the reason Theodophilus burned the library?) but that doesn't decrease its importance or values. Indeed, it inflates it.

You might as well say that the values of the works of Galileo was (artificially) inflated by the catholic church's intolerance of such science.

 

[phildwyer]

You being an atheist shouldn't preclude you from understanding the philosophical differences between god and the tooth fairy.

How are you evaluating the two likelihoods? You've arrived at the conclusion that they are equal so you must have some rational behind it.

Now I don't believe in a god myself ... but I am capable of distinguishing between theism and belief in santa claus. To dismiss the views of so many people and so many great thinkers and so many great scientists as childish fantasy strikes me as rather arrogant.

And for this reason the giant spagetti monster really is a very tired and unamusing metaphor.

Precisely, exactly and absolutely. Even the most vehement atheist should study the Bible, simply because it is by far the single most influential text in Western history, and that influence has shaped our world and our society. Not to read the Bible is to cut oneself off from the most powerful means of understanding the world--and I mean this in simple *historical* terms, not theological ones. Ignorance of the Bible, for instance, is the only means by which intelligent people can possibly be brought to imagine that belief in God is comparable to belief in a 'Spaghetti Monster.'

 

[kyser_soze]

You being an atheist shouldn't preclude you from understanding the philosophical differences between god and the tooth fairy.

How are you evaluating the two likelihoods? You've arrived at the conclusion that they are equal so you must have some rational behind it.

Now I don't believe in a god myself ... but I am capable of distinguishing between theism and belief in santa claus. To dismiss the views of so many people and so many great thinkers and so many great scientists as childish fantasy strikes me as rather arrogant.

And for this reason the giant spagetti monster really is a very tired and unamusing metaphor.

That were I to complete a 50,000 page text explaining how the gt spaghetti monster created the world it would be just as valid as 'God' - if someone wrote a valid text based around the tooth fairy and how it created and governed the universe it would be the same. AFAIC the only thing that separates God from the Tooth Fairy is the theology of the bible - there's nothing rational to say that the TF didn't create the universe any more than there's physical evidence that God did.

And so what if I'm arrogant? I've read a lot of philosophy and disregarded it, as well as much pre-Nwetonian science and math. When I read pre-Einstein attempts to understand the universe I view it as quaint. Just as I view a great deal of what Einstein said about the blind watchmaker and God not playing dice with the universe when I think about quatum physics - his refusal to believe that the universe WASN'T ordered and like a giant clockwork mechanism (and his continued belief in God which is what prevented him from accepting QT) for me shows that he had limits. Just in the same way that I don't think S Hawking is the 'brainiest scientist alive' because he's written a book that no one without a fairly good knowledge of science can understand (indeed, this shows a weakness - for my money the mark of a great scientists has been an ability to explain even the most fanciful ideas in simple, clear and concise ways, e.g. Schrodingers Cat)

And the last point is why I prefer to believe in the Mighty Swing Bin rather than the spag monster.

 

[Belushi]

And the last point is why I prefer to believe in the Mighty Swing Bin rather than the spag monster.

HERETIC!

 

[angry bob]

That were I to complete a 50,000 page text explaining how the gt spaghetti monster created the world it would be just as valid as 'God' - if someone wrote a valid text based around the tooth fairy and how it created and governed the universe it would be the same. AFAIC the only thing that separates God from the Tooth Fairy is the theology of the bible - there's nothing rational to say that the TF didn't create the universe any more than there's physical evidence that God did.

If you were to create a text as valuable and insightful and profound as the bible ... you'd be the greatest author who ever lived. Besides that, your point is rather simple.

Presumably your equating the tooth fairy and god is a result of there being no physical evidence for either. As someone who clearly knows a bit about science you must surely realise the fundamental difference between these two concepts.

If one suggests both theories ... the tooth fairy theory would be rather easy to disprove (or at least render extremely unlikely) through simple experiment. The god theory however, would not.

Additionally one must take into account the rationality of both concepts. On one hand you have a fairy who takes teeth for money and on the other you have a meaningful universe and existence.

And so what if I'm arrogant? I've read a lot of philosophy and disregarded it, as well as much pre-Nwetonian science and math. When I read pre-Einstein attempts to understand the universe I view it as quaint. Just as I view a great deal of what Einstein said about the blind watchmaker and God not playing dice with the universe when I think about quatum physics - his refusal to believe that the universe WASN'T ordered and like a giant clockwork mechanism (and his continued belief in God which is what prevented him from accepting QT) for me shows that he had limits. Just in the same way that I don't think S Hawking is the 'brainiest scientist alive' because he's written a book that no one without a fairly good knowledge of science can understand (indeed, this shows a weakness - for my money the mark of a great scientists has been an ability to explain even the most fanciful ideas in simple, clear and concise ways, e.g. Schrodingers Cat)

It's funny you should mention Einstein's refusal to believe in Quantum Mechanics. His view that Quantum theory would eventually yield to a more fundamental theory have gained growing acceptance in recent years. i.e. although it looks random ... it ain't, much like Brownian motion looks random but ain't.

I'm not sure I follow the connection between Einstein having his limits (which apparently you don't share) and Hawking's not being the world's best scientist.

And I'm sure I don't agree that the mark of a good scientist is his ability to explain concepts to a layperson. That is the mark of a good science teacher.

My point about you being arrogant was not that you should blindly accept something (belief in god) cause great men did, but that you perhaps shouldn't rubbish and trivialise such a viewpoint to the extent where you suggest it's nothing more than a childish belief in the tooth fairy.

 

[kyser_soze]

a meaningful universe and existence.

Don't quite get this. The universe and my existance have no meaning except that I place upon it. Aside from the basic biological functions of all lifeforms - , survive, breed and die - there is no 'meaning' to human existence of the existence of the universe except the meaning that we give it. So I don't agree with you there.

Just as an aside on the QT/randomness point. Einstein, because of his belief in God, limited himself to looking for solutions to the universe that fitted his idea of how it should fit together, as opposed to approaching it from the view that he didn't know either. I'm also aware of the idea of QT being part of a larger overall theory and also only pseudo-random...still undecided on that one.

Should have explained myself a little better on the teacher/scientist thing...a good scientist should, IMV, be able to explain their ideas. Someone who can come up with a theory which is understood only by 2 or 3 others might have discovered something deep and meaningful to them, but science is a human-wide project, and as such it needs to be understandable to humans.

 

[angry bob]

Don't quite get this. The universe and my existance have no meaning except that I place upon it. Aside from the basic biological functions of all lifeforms - , survive, breed and die - there is no 'meaning' to human existence of the existence of the universe except the meaning that we give it. So I don't agree with you there.

Actually I agree with you. But my point was that someone who doesn't; someone who sees a meaning in existence, isn't exhibiting the same reasoning skills as a young child who believes in the tooth fairy

Just as an aside on the QT/randomness point. Einstein, because of his belief in God, limited himself to looking for solutions to the universe that fitted his idea of how it should fit together, as opposed to approaching it from the view that he didn't know either. I'm also aware of the idea of QT being part of a larger overall theory and also only pseudo-random...still undecided on that one.

I realise that. And alternative way of stating it would be that Einstein had a clear idea of the nature of the universe and wouldn't accept philosophical concepts that didn't fit this nature. Now I'm sure he accepted that QT worked but not that it was an adequate natural philosophy. And it's looking more and more like he was correct.

Should have explained myself a little better on the teacher/scientist thing...a good scientist should, IMV, be able to explain their ideas. Someone who can come up with a theory which is understood only by 2 or 3 others might have discovered something deep and meaningful to them, but science is a human-wide project, and as such it needs to be understandable to humans.

Fair enough ... and i'd agree that it is a considerable bonus if a great scientist can explain his ideas to more than a few experts.

 

[kyser_soze]

Now I'm sure he accepted that QT worked but not that it was an adequate natural philosophy. And it's looking more and more like he was correct.

That's just it - he didn't. He didn't accept QM on any level - philosophically or scientifically. I haven't got it to hand, but the Bluffers Guide To The Quantum Universe (recommended) has some excepts from the famous debate in the 20s about it between him and Bohr and co. He didn't accept that such a thing as the quantum realm could exist.

 

[angry bob]

That's just it - he didn't. He didn't accept QM on any level - philosophically or scientifically. I haven't got it to hand, but the Bluffers Guide To The Quantum Universe (recommended) has some excepts from the famous debate in the 20s about it between him and Bohr and co. He didn't accept that such a thing as the quantum realm could exist.

When I say he accepted it worked I meant he accepted it produced the correct results. That's not to say the philosophy or science behind it had any value (other than producing the correct results). And let's face it ... it is pretty screwy.

The obvious analogy is Newton's laws ... they work pretty well but they are not correct.

The fact that he accepted that QT produced results is evidence by his (unlitimately fruitless) search for a unified theory to make sense of it.

Whatever though ... this is getting into a debate about Einstein which was not my point at all.

Do you still claim equivalence between belief in the tooth fairy and belief in god?