[quote author=“psiconoclast”][quote author=“rico”]Mr psiconoclast you ought to bitch slap yourself if you stopped loving your mother because someone called her a bitch. Be assured that bitch or not - Even bitches need love.
Of course I would never stop loving my mother, and should I ever feel compelled to for such a silly reason, you have my word that I would “bitch slap” myself. Now that I have set the record straight with regards to my fillial loyalty, on to the good stuff.
Good enough for me and iI hope your mother does not contradict you.
What you failed to understand in the argument that I espoused is that the only qualified persons who could have judged Jesus were the Jews themselves.
I must disagree. Unless you have vastly more evidence to back this claim up, this is nothing more than racist tripe.
Easy to say racist tripe but it does not demonstrate any meaningful point that you may want to make. Racist…. is it because i don’t worship a half Jew half who knows what or Is is it because i am picking on the so-called white race. Please clarify… I will admit that I am a very dark skinded big boneded Hindu is this why I am a spew racist tripe.
While I have no particular interest in defending Jesus per se, I do believe that you are leaving out an important part of the story. Jesus (who, for the sake of discussion, I will assume existed in some form) claimed to fulfill the prphecy of the Messiah. The Jews, at the time of Christ, believed that the Messiah would smite the Romans, and restore the nation of Israel. When Jesus made it clear that he was going to do neither (at least not then), many Jews became angry, and decided that he was a false prophet, or so the story goes.
Evidently, you do not know what you are talking about here. The Jews were according to the Bible unsure about Jesus from the very beginning. Therefore they did not rush in droves to embrace him or his philosophy. According to the Christian Bible many would have taken him and given him a bitch slapping. But as you may not be aware his men were armed. It for this reason that one of disciples used a sword to cut off the ear of some person who came to imprison him. The Jews did not attack or become angry with Jesus because he did not turn out tto be the Messiah they wanted him to be. So before you tow the Christian I expect you to come up with some serious inquiry. Firstly, they knew that many Jews saw themselves as the Messiah. Contrary to your belief in the matter it was their religion and many were inspired to play the role or actually believe that they were the Messiah. By the time Jesus came they had already tested many claim of this nature. I might remind you that only they were testing because only their scriptures spoke of a Messiah. So you must understand how stupid I think your statement is about my being a racist.
Of course when Jesus came and made his claims they quickly dispensed with him because Jesus almost immediately proved to them that he was a flakey. The prophecy of Malachi and the Prophecy of Jonah were more than sufficient for them. Incidentally the pagans and the gentiles had no such prophecies. Call me racist for saying so but that the fact. So, here is the bottom line. The Jews felt threatened by Jesus’ presence and teachings primarily because they suspect that he would sell out his nation and land. This was clearly expressed in the Sannedrine - if you read your Bible - which i suspect you did not. So do not make false Christian charges and then say you are not Christian. That is the worst form of Christianity. Therefore your should examine more closely your claim about the part which states - as the story goes. The story certainly does not go like that at all at least not biblically. That is how the Christians say it goes and there is a big difference. Therefore, I find it puzzling that you ignore the Bible and take what the doctrine says. Are you brainwashed too sir and perhaps do not know it? i could help you there.
Furthermore, although Judaism was a fairly racially devisive faith, Christianity is (in theory) far less so. Since the message of Christ was intended for Jew and Gentile alike, why on earth would one assume that only a Jew is qualified to weigh in on its validity?
Christianity is far less divisive and racially divided than Judaism. My friend are you out of your cotton picking mind (please pardon the racial) How long have you been living in America? Are you related to George Bush? Goddamn boy (pardon the expression) Christianity has created more racism and division that the Hindu caste system (my apology to my friend mr Reddy). Christians brought slaves into this country, segregated them, used them like animals, killed the American Indians and justified it by calling them savages. Intruded into the lands of other nations and divided their people and even slaughtered those that did not accept their faith. My friend Christianity and especially white male Christians are the worst barbarians that ever inhabited this planet.
Perhaps you have gotten too insensitive to the divisions and racism that Christianity offers because you may (not too sure) from an isolated area but let me remind you that every Sunday America is the most racially divided place on this planet because white Christians go to white churches and black christians go to black churches. Talk about religious division. The Jews my friend were not like these Christians. They killed no one to attract a following. And IF you must know it Hitler really picked on them because he believed that they were responsible for Murdering his MEssiah - albeit a false one.
It was their religion that called for the coming of a Messiah - not the gentiles, not the pagans if they can be so separated.
Again, though, he breached the barrier, if you will, by preaching to the Gentiles.
If you read your Bible Jesus said that he had not come for the gentiles but the Jews. If he had then he would have preached in Rome as well.
Now if you are familiar with the prophecy it called for Jesus being both named and called Immanuel - mark this carefully named and called. Nowhere was Jesus ever called or named Immanuel.
Immanuel is simply Hebrew for “God is with us”. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (mark this carefully) he was, in effect, proclaiming himself as Immanuel!
Do you know the difference between someone proclaiming himself something and someone being called and named something? I marked what you said very carefully. And still I fail to understand or discover where or how someone other than Jesus had called Jesus - God among us. Show me that and then I will say yeah this person has got his Biblical act together. By the way right now i am calling and naming myself God will you worship me or be a racist tripe and seek another God.
Certainly his own people called him Beelzebub - chief of the devils.
They certainly did - And good for them because they knew that he he had to have been born through his mother’s ass if he was ever to claim that she was a virgin. Now from where I come from anyone who comes from that orifice has god to be unadulterated shit. Unless you know of something else that comes out of there that i don’t
Some of his own people. Others of his own people called him Lord (again, assuming for the sake of argument, that he did, in fact, exist). Some of George W. Bush’s own people call him a jackass, does this mean that someone 2000 years from now would be correct to assert that the USA was literally ruled by a Donkey? Of course not, and your claim with regards to Christ is equally absurd.
Let’s not dismiss the political point too easily here. I too am of the opinion that George Bush is a jackass and more. And since half of America follows him like whimpering donkeys, I would wager a guess and say that if people 2000 hence say that America was ruled by a donkey and the people too were donkeys I would say that they were half right - maybe not literally because that would be an insult to all donkeys.
In any event you forget that the word Lord Lord is still not the same as the name Immanuel. Or am i missing something here. Just show me where Jesus was called and named Immanuel. I would suggest that you also Ask Gabriel because this is the creature that actually did the naming.
That is in direct contradiction with Jesus’ own religion - Judaism which as i mentioned required him to be named and called not Jesus or Beelzebub but Immanuel. In short this is a major dilemma for Christianity. Hence my point about the Christians worshipping the devil.
See the above, this argument holds no water.
I don’t know what water you are talking about especially when you have not in one single instance shown me where he was named and called Immanuel or as you so correctly translate - God among us. Where where where I beg of you sir where where where is that all important prophetic naming and calling. Please do show it to me so that I can worship the Lord.
Logically, when someone attempts to deceive his people the he/she is considered a deceiver.
On this one point, I think we can safely agree - one who attempts deception is, in fact, appropriately called a deceiver.
The mountain of evidence that i possess proves that Jesus deceived his followers, repeatedly.
Interesting. Presumably this mountain of evidence first proves that Jesus actually existed? But even if we ignore that little inconvenience, your “evidence”, from what I can tell, consists of regurgitated religious slander, which although of some historic interest, hardly seems conclusive in any forensic sense.
I will try not to vomit or regurgitate but if you understand some of what my other friends have written about this situation you will not be quick to judge. But let me go over it again so that i may save you from falling into the ways of the Christians. I say this with due respect and out of a suspicion that you seem to Know more of how Christians frame theirr arguments than you know about what their helpers are saying about Christianity. Firstly, never again confuse my writings with the belief that I accept that Jesus was a real or historical person. He was for all intentents and purposes a mixture of half a dozen persons some of them purely mythical. I don’t have the time to go over the mountain of evidence but if you care to check out the life of mithra, krishna and the Roman gods you should be able to dig it out in the same manner that you seem to know about Christianity. The primary issue here is that I accept that Jesus was merely a Biblical reality. People like Luke, Mark, John and Matthews who absolutely did not know such a person as Jesus in real life wrote about this character. Luke you should know was a Greek so where would he get his knowledge about Jesus from? You got it - yes from make belief land. He did not rely on historical documents none existed at the time none exist now.
In short there is no proof of a historical person called or named Jesus or immanuel. I dare say - it is in the minds of Christians and presumably you. Now, although it is in their minds, they unmistakably take him to be real. it is i believe a sad case of delusion. Hence they have desperately use the Shroud of Turin and other imaginary situations to force some patently false historical evidence upon their unsuspecting congregation.
I am not sure how real all this is for you? I read elsewhere in this forum that since Jesus is real in the minds of Christians and all the problems - such as killing indians as well as the people who did not believe that the earth is flat ect - that they created stem from this false sense of reality, one has to treat the situation as if a real person called Jesus exists. This is a matter of convenience of course. But it is a necessary one. Otherwise, one risks the possibility of having his/her argument refuted before common sense prevails. It is a subtle approach I will admit yet it seems to help those Christians who are brainwashed. it is no different than saying to someone oh! you see the bogeyman there. Okay letus go talk to him. The alternative I grant you has also been tried in more ways than one such as : I don’t see the bogeyman that you speak of. Now if he is really the Lord God Jesus Christ himself ask him to materialize and tell me a few things about the internet.” Do you see how absurd this all is?
Also, since I am unaware of Satan ever bitch slapping anyone I am forced to admit that no such being exist except in the minds of Christians and Muslims. Here agin I am not at all sure about you. Since they are real for these people and since I want to show them that the reality or falsity of these substances have not bearing on the Ultimate Truth, I have merely entertained their perspective.
Now I am glad that you said “presumably.” But it would help you to know what I mean by “mountain of evidence before you leap to the conclusion that I take Jesus and his teachings to be real. As I stated earlier - people will tell lies in order to deceive other people. Because i pick up on those lies and use them to counter the lies does not make me a liar. I see no reason for anyone to lie in a world that is already swamped with lies. Now, what do you think about using lies as evidence to disprove it ? Evidently, you believe that my dealing with lies or truth depending on your perspective, is something to be frowned upon. Point is we this is how we deal with the material world. If you are interested in Knowing more about the mountain of evidence then I refer you to Thayalan Reddy’s Book entitled Jesus is Satan. But you do not need it because you are not a Christian .
However, your monumental stupidy does amuse me a great deal. Your assertion of regurgitated slander is nothing more thn a silly judgment on fact that you do not have in evidence. How for instance do you know that it is regurgitated and of all things “spiritual slander” (big words for a stated non-Christian) if you do not know what has been discussed - forensically or otherwise. You are no different from a brainwashed Christian who believes he knows what spirit is therefore he is qualified to denounce other things which he does not know as - spiritual slander. All you have to do is ask for the evidence or read some of the stuff that is placed throughout this forum by Vivek and others. Better yet you may have to go to Telegraph Road in Berkerley California and speak to Thayalan Reddy.
well I will grant you that the Christian scriptures are vomit and it has been treated as such in Thayalan Book. But again where you come up short is in your speculation that the evidence spiritual slander. i dae say it was Jesus who commited spiritual fraud. Perhaps the best way that I can describe it is in that language that you phrase thing. The Christian scriptures is without a doubt sheer vomit and Thayalan Reddy has analyzed the vomit to discover what it consist of. He has found a great deal of bread and wine which makes him believe that Christians are no different than pagans and cannibals because they want to eat Jesus’ body and drink his blood in order to have the qualities of their leader. He would have loved to examine mary’s womb but as you know the woman had five other children. therefore he is mystified how she could be worshipped as a virgin. He states that the Romans believed in Virgin Birth long before the Christians therefore the christians copied this and the Easter Celebrations to exaggerate the myth called Jesus Christ - we are still searching for the tax documents and his birth certificate at this time.
This qualifies him as being the great deceiver. By Christian standards the great deceiver is guess who - yes Satan. Therefore Thayalan Reddy in his Book has put two and two together and come up with the only conclusion - Jesus is Satan.
Truly, this Thayalan Reddy has a dizzying intellect. The only problem is that I think he may have made a tiny mistake. You see, the fellow that I bought my last car from, he was the biggest deceiver that I have ever dealt with. In his office, he had plaque after plaque proclaiming him as salesman of the year. He is, most assuredly the Great Deceiver, and thus, by a narrow margin, I must inform you that Jesus is not Satan, for Satan is, in fact, selling used cars in California.
Sorry about you nasty but trivial experience with the car sales man. Yet you must understand that he was only trying to sell you a car. Oh! by the way did he also attempt to sell you a life everlasting, where angels will caress you and god will make you peek into hell and see George Bush and Dick Cheney burning like a barbecue turkey on thankgiving day. There is a vast difference in what is being sold here. Please try to see how naive your are really. Did not anybody teach you that there is very little difference between a car salesman and a preacher. They mostly want to sell their product by whatever lie necessary. In the case of the preacher - he does not bother that he uses lies to sell a lie. Jesus after all, is too big a business to bother about Truth and the establishment of that Truth. Now all Gods if they were real should have left unmistakable proof of their existence on this planet. They could have left a photograph of themselves - if for no other reason than to prove their mastery in that field, This would have been a better way than to have Jimmy Swaggfart licking up the prostitutes and then telling us about an existence called Jesus.
Moreover these gods or messiahs or whatever shit they call themselves could also have invented a computer or something that would help suggest : yeah this is more believable. But people like Jesus knew diddly - in fact Jesus did not know - as thayalan says - that the earth was geoid in shape. Fine son of a god that is - would you not admit.
Now unless you are one of these brainwashed Christians, you should realize that Christiany would naturally have the propensity to hide this fact from its flock.
I was raised Christian, but have since renounced it. A quick perusal of my posts should make it quite clear that I have no love for organized religion, whatsoever. Of course, it could all be a giant trick. I might be a secret undercover Christian, sent to infiltrate unsuspecting groups of free thinkers, in an effort to learn of their demonic (angelic?) plans, and report them back to my nefarious masters. So, ultimately, I leave it up to you to determine whether I am still brainwashed or not.
Dont fool yourself quite yet, You have some ways to go before you are unbrainwashed. Easy to say that one hates organized religion but it is difficult to remove the pattern of Christian thinking that has become habitual = the terminology “religious slander” should never be a part of a person who hates organized religons. After all the act of hating organized religions is ones freedom go beyond whether not allow oneself to consider tough statements against religion as being slanderous.
In the meantime, however, let us assume that I am legit, and no longer a brainwashed Christian zombie. I can tell you with no small certainty, however, that the vast majority of the Christian churches have no need to “hide” this notion from their flocks because they do not believe anything other than what they preach - namely, that Jesus is the Son of God.
I will concede, however, that it is quite possible that whomever first put pen to paper to describe Jesus, may not have been entirely honest. If this is the case, though, I assure you that their deception has been functionally lost in the dusty reaches of history, and the modern Christian churches, sadly, believe everything that they preach.
Still we are faced with the character that has become real and is the cause of all kinds of mischief and wars. So are we to put up with the age old excuse that we should not blame Jesus but rather blame the followers. The so-called - Lord save us from your followers bit. No No Jesus has to go if the lies has to stop. Otherwise we will have another 2000 years of the same shit.
Moreover it has every incentive to hide it from the very people that it seeks to convert. Hence even you had to call my writings on this point - asinine. However, your doing so did not warrant your having the example of your mother being a bitch. All you have to do is convincingly show me how Jesus fulfilled the prophecy pertaining to this subject matter.
Uh, no. I have to do no such thing. You, on the other hand, have an awful lot of work cut out for you. You must first convince me of there being a Satan. Next you must convince me that Jesus was real too. Then, and only then, can you start down the daunting road of proving that Jesus and Satan are, in fact, the same being.
I pass by here with no comment except to say the Satan is——what to me. Just checking to see if you read up above.
My comment about someone calling me a son of a bitch, was intended to illustrate the absurdity of interpreting someone’s derogatory slander in a literal sense, and then trying to make a logical assertion as a result.
you must admit that I did take the ball and run here—did i not. Boy i love saying the word Bitch slapping. It makes me feel ordinary and I love that feeling.
To put it another way, it would be like me telling you that I thought Aishwarya Rai was hot, and you, upon learning that you were to meet her at a social function, deciding to wear an asbestos suit, in order to not get burned. A bit silly, huh?
No No it would give me the opposite effect. It will make me take my clothes off - as the song goes.
But, if you insist on calling people devils because other people have claimed it, then I feel I must tell you that, by that logic, I am probably a devil myself. I had an asian friend back in my school days, and, I am ashamed to say, I was the friend who always got him into trouble by getting him to do things he would not otherwise have done. His mom always muttered when I came around. One day I asked him what she was saying, and he told me, with a cheerful smile, that his mom called me “The White Devil” because of the bad influence that I was.
Devils of the mind comes in all shapes and sizes. White ones are the worst. Just kidding…
Please understand that I am not about to defend any mythical characters. As far as I am concerned they are the past and to me that is mere dust.
We are here to challenge the ideas in a world full of ideas. Critic.org is all about this challenge. We cannot be responsible if people get annoyed or angry. We ourselves take it as an exercise to sharpen our thoughts and make a better cake of our lives.
Well for crying out loud, why didn’t you say so? All you had to do was come here and say something like the following:
“Hey guys, I wanted to let you all know that a bunch of wackjob Christians are running around India, and doing horrible things, because, amongst other reasons, they believe some really screwed up stuff.”
Now if i told you that would you be my friend and would you have gotten to know about the situation in detail. It is only when peoplebelieve that they own their transitory ideas that problems develop. I could be arguing from your side of the fence in a couple of years - you never know. Hope you are not steaming by now about some of my earlier comments.
Our response would have been something like this:
“We know, they pull the same crap here, and we don’t like it either, but, unfortunately, they are almost as tough as cockroaches, and seem to thrive under a wide variety of conditions. If you figure out how to deal with them before we do, please let us know.”
What i am defending, however, is the right to have a serious inquiry about religion without the dogmas.
Not to get too technical on you, but the whole “Jesus is Satan” bit is textbook dogmatism. Granted, it is a somewhat novel dogma, but it is dogma nonetheless.
I may from time to time refer to one dogma or another but I can assure you that I do not fixate on anyone one of them.
You seem pretty fixated on the above mentioned one. Perhaps not, I have a life you know
They, after all, serve as useful examples of how people can follow ideas and beliefs for thousands of years without applying any proper reasoning. I see this as being detrimental to the process of keeping an open mind.
Yes, isn’t it amazing how this can happen? I’ll let you in on a little secret: Anybody who tries to convince another person of any religious truth has failed to apply proper reasoning.
Indeed, this is how people have become hopelessly deadlocked in the inquiry into evolution and creation. The simple formula is for everyone to acknowledge that there is a problem on both sides but one appears more plausible than the other.
No, one appears plausible, and the other requires one to accept, on faith, things for which there is not one scintilla of evidence.
Well sudden origins and missing links does puzzle me sometimes. But I will admit it does make more sense.
In the meanwhile all of us can keep an open mind on the subject until clear and convincing evidence is presented. So far to my knowledge both science and religion are not based on actual facts.
Clear and convincing evidence of the fact of evolution exists in stupendous abundance. Clear and convincing rational arguments demonstrating the lack of any substantive support for religious cosmology exist in equal abundance.
Finally let me further assure you that there is nothing telling about one religion slandering another. It is called earnest inquiry. It is a good thing. As soon as all of us enter into the frey perhaps we may more quickly eradicate false beliefs.
So, If an Indian who has converted to Christianity claims that the Hindu pantheon are all, in fact, demons, I should consider that to be honest inquiry, and patiently examine such evidence as he might put forward? Preposterous. Such an assertion would clearly be religious slander, and I would rightfully ignore it as such, except, possibly, to attempt to engage him in a discussion of deeper importance, specifically that demons, along with all of the other supernatural things he wants me to believe in, do not exist.
So let the bitch slapping begin
There is no call for that. Once a discussion goes that route, no progress can be made. I admit that my retort is laden with sarcasm, but you strike me as someone who can deal. Just because our exchange is adversarial, does not mean that we must forgo all civility, no?
Okay let the Bitch slapping stop right now. Unfortunately I am not a myth therefore nobody will listen to what i say
Take care Matt - Keep it tough Sorry i had no time to edit this one so please clarify any lapse in my reasoning