Anti-religious question

This reminds me of the free speech debates. You have the right to say anything you want, but not the right to be free from consequences.

I don't know, but death is not so bad when there is also eternal life.

Well, I wouldn't compare modern civilization's laws and philosophies with that of a God, but in our society, there is a spectrum of crime and consequence. To equate eating fruit with death and pain seems a little outrageous, but God always seemed like a very egotistical spirit. Then again, at the time of the Bible being written, what we consider civil and judicial is relative. Some say God loves us unconditionally, but then contradict themselves whenever the Bible is brought up due to the events (damning us to death, causing a worldwide flood and basically wiping out the species, etc.). One would think God actually hates us.
 
On the Garden of Eden story itself, Gnostic Christians believe the modern interpretation of Christianity has it completely backwards. Namely that the serpent, a revered figure in many world traditions and cultures, was actually the force of good while the Yaweh god was actually just a demonic entity...which honestly makes a lot more sense considering the kinds of shit Yahweh god pulls in the bible and the constant want and need for worship to satiate what appears to be a massive ego complex.

It makes sense because satan's goal has always been to supplant Yahweh as god over us. So it shouldn't be surprising at all that we see a lot of cultures and traditions look toward him as god. That is his goal and deception from the beginning.
 
On the Garden of Eden story itself, Gnostic Christians believe the modern interpretation of Christianity has it completely backwards. Namely that the serpent, a revered figure in many world traditions and cultures, was actually the force of good while the Yaweh god was actually just a demonic entity...which honestly makes a lot more sense considering the kinds of shit Yahweh god pulls in the bible and the constant want and need for worship to satiate what appears to be a massive ego complex.

Ok. I feel better now, I wasn't the only one seeing it that way.
 
For hundreds of years nonbelievers adhered to those values because the penalties for apostasy and heresy were at best being shunned by society, and at worst being tortured to death.

Sure, there was plenty of that in the past, which is wrong.

My point still stands: One need not believe in God to encourage religion. Many point out that it's a simple tool for control, but control need not be a pejorative. Society functions well with these values in place.
 
Ehhh reading from cover to cover. not sure if that is considering a reading plan.

If you've never read the bible before, I would highly recommend you try a different reading plan. Take this with a grain of salt, as I don't know you, your education, etc, but for someone who is completely unfamiliar with the bible, it's best to read the NT first.

I recommend people read from John to Jude, then devote some time to all the Gospels, then finally the Torah and the rest of the OT. Then you can tackle the book of Revelation. Just my opinion.
 
Lol, yes



They were not children but grown adults capable of exercising their free will. They were given choices and consequences. They chose and suffered the consequences that were clearly laid out for them.

So if you want to make the analogy work then compare to a father who tells his child that if he touches a hot stove he will get his hand burnt. The child touches the stove anyway....child gets burnt...child gets mad at the parent instead of the friend who inticed him.

And I blame Adam, Eve, and the serpent.

If you left your kid around a hot stove and he was able to touch it, you take some responsibility for that imo. God created humans but he didn't know that human nature is to be curious? "Hey guys do whatever you want but don't eat the fruit from that tree". That's like Chief Wiggum being surprised that Ralph went looking in his "magical closet of mystery". So if your kid touched the hot stove, you punish him severely, and severely punish any other kid you have in the future, even though they didn't do anything? This is why I could never wrap my head around this religion, man. You tell me God is all forgiving and loving, but he couldn't give Adam and Eve a mulligan, and even worse he fucks the rest of us because of what they did?
 
If you left your kid around a hot stove and he was able to touch it, you take some responsibility for that imo. God created humans but he didn't know that human nature is to be curious? "Hey guys do whatever you want but don't eat the fruit from that tree". That's like Chief Wiggum being surprised that Ralph went looking in his "magical closet of mystery". So if your kid touched the hot stove, you punish him severely, and severely punish any other kid you have in the future, even though they didn't do anything? This is why I could never wrap my head around this religion, man. You tell me God is all forgiving and loving, but he couldn't give Adam and Eve a mulligan, and even worse he fucks the rest of us because of what they did?

Mysterious ways.
 
I'm not here to convince you, especially when you're being largely rhetorical. You can believe that Jesus had it easy if that's what you want.

If you're really interested, I suggest reading the NT with a blank slate and discarding all your preconceived notions. Pretend you've never heard of any of this and read it, and then see what you think.

it doesnt take much to convince me that he had it tougher than the average poor guy in that time, people had a rough life if they were not related to power or were rich, that was life back then.

again, please refrain to me godly sacrifces that he went through during his preaching life...

i'll wait
 
If you've never read the bible before, I would highly recommend you try a different reading plan. Take this with a grain of salt, as I don't know you, your education, etc, but for someone who is completely unfamiliar with the bible, it's best to read the NT first.

I recommend people read from John to Jude, then devote some time to all the Gospels, then finally the Torah and the rest of the OT. Then you can tackle the book of Revelation. Just my opinion.

Thanks for that. Yea I was trying to treat it objectively as possible and just start reading, but I'm getting the feeling there's going to be a whole lot that doesn't make sense.
 
Thanks for that. Yea I was trying to treat it objectively as possible and just start reading, but I'm getting the feeling there's going to be a whole lot that doesn't make sense.

Reading the NT first will give you more context to understand the OT. You can likely read the Torah and the NT intermittently, but the rest of the OT is tough reading.
 
it doesnt take much to convince me that he had it tougher than the average poor guy in that time, people had a rough life if they were not related to power or were rich, that was life back then.

again, please refrain to me godly sacrifces that he went through during his preaching life...

i'll wait

I have no interest in trying to prove something to you that you're unwilling to concede.

If you've read the Bible, it's an easy point to concede, that Christ suffered in life and in death because he sacrificed and forsook his own will.
 
If you left your kid around a hot stove and he was able to touch it, you take some responsibility for that imo. God created humans but he didn't know that human nature is to be curious? "Hey guys do whatever you want but don't eat the fruit from that tree". That's like Chief Wiggum being surprised that Ralph went looking in his "magical closet of mystery". So if your kid touched the hot stove, you punish him severely, and severely punish any other kid you have in the future, even though they didn't do anything? This is why I could never wrap my head around this religion, man. You tell me God is all forgiving and loving, but he couldn't give Adam and Eve a mulligan, and even worse he fucks the rest of us because of what they did?

The punishment does not fit the crime...
 
Tough in what way? The language?

Take the Major/Minor Prophets. It's difficult to understand the symbolism without context. If you were to open up a Prophetic book and read it, it would be difficult to make sense of it if you had no background. It would also be difficult to understand what the author is alluding to if you do not understand the time it was written and who is was addressed to, for example, the books written at the time of the Exile.
 
I have no interest in trying to prove something to you that you're unwilling to concede.

If you've read the Bible, it's an easy point to concede, that Christ suffered in life and in death because he sacrificed and forsook his own will.

im willing, thats why im asking you to point to me the monumental unhuman suffereing he went throuh during his preaching life. Ive read the NT quite a few times, not from cover to cover, I went to a catholic school from age 7 to 17, unless you went to a catholic school, ive probably been to church 100 times more that you have, and Im sure as hell dont remember anything about jesus being a slave, prisoner, or going through a living hell during his preaching days (im strictly talking before the romans caught him), so again, may be I am missing something, thats why im asking you to simple pointing me towards the right direction, so I can go and read some of what you call "suffering"
 
Back
Top