Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Sheb]

Yeah, it was a bit cheap, but honestly, if you're going to start throwing away the books you don't like, why don't you just get rid of the whole Bible and live by your own moral code?

[Helgoland]

And that's why the Bible should be left as it is, with the inconvenient bits ignored

[Il Palazzo]

Yeah, it was a bit cheap, but honestly, if you're going to start throwing away the books you don't like, why don't you just get rid of the whole Bible and live by your own moral code?

Baby steps, darling. Baby steps.

[TD1]

Though there are a few warning signs for when it will start and a few have happened IIRC

Isnt' that the same mantra that has been repeated constantly for the past 2000 years?

Here's another question: who rules hell?

Yep, it was repeated constantly. The initial followers of Jesus believed that the end of times would come within their lifetimes (Spreading the religion giving them access to heaven in such a short time being a possible reason the religion got off the ground in the first place) and as for hell, the answer is God. God is the creator ex nihilo. Everything was made by him, and he is omnipotent. Nothing is ruled by anything else-all ultimately comes back to God, even the actions of the Devil.

[Rolan7]

It's... not entirely an inaccurate statement, though. If folks just kinda' tossed out everything that wasn't Streaker J, and junked stuff like the sword bit in the process, the bible probably would be better off. Much more clear message. Probably a fair bit more palatable, too.

Actually kinda' forgetting, but didn't Jefferson or someone in that group do a remix of the bible that kicked out basically everything metaphysical, or something along those lines? Anyone here read the thing?

Yeah, most of what Jesus preached was good stuff - Except the occasions when he supposedly slipped into the vengeful warrior-messiah everyone had expected.  Which I agree sounds like human error, misrecording his words.

What if the Old Testament is true, and the story of Jesus is slightly misunderstood?

God does all the petty, vicious, racist things in the Old Testament.

He makes part of himself into human form to fulfill the prophecy of the warrior messiah who will re-establish Israel by sword.  Because he's always doing that sort of thing, using divine magic to destroy non-Israelites, and this way he gets to do it personally.  A fresh perspective, and maximum glory.

Except Jesus is both human and divine, and is horrified at what he/God has been doing to helpless humans all this time.  Jesus rejects his *very clear* destiny as a warrior, instead preaching a message of love and tolerance to all that will listen.  But that does nothing to save humanity from God, who has always engineered war and suffering.

So Jesus, in an ultimate act of compassion, sacrifices himself to seal the God of the Old Testament.  Maybe they're both gone.  Maybe they can whisper to humans, furthering their agendas of strife and love.  Maybe, one day, one of them will return...

Makes a lot more sense than God fake-sacrificing a third of himself to appease his own sense of justice, and then only applying the salvation to those who spread his word - like some kind of Youtube chain letter.

[Rolan7]

Which annotated Bible do you use?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com (based on the KJV).  It's really useful.  Some verses have tags like "Contradiction", "Absurdity", "Misogyny", "Good Stuff".  The tags are applied a bit liberally, but that just means I have to evaluate results until I find one I can support in a discussion.  I won't pretend not to care about Christianity - as I've shared, I feel like the religion is a threat to my personal liberties - but I'm not Biblical scholar, so it helps to have a resource like this to refer to.

One of my favorite things about it is that many of the tagged verses, particularly the "Contradiction" ones, have links to responses volunteered by theologists.  These defenses of the Bible can be very interesting, and usually make decent points!

For example, how did Judas die?  Matthew 27:5 says he threw the silver on the temple floor then hung himself.  Acts 1:18 says he bought a field, then fell down in it and his guts "burst asunder" and "rushed out".  This seems like a cut-and-dry contradiction, but Looking Unto Jesus points out that he could have hung himself in the field, then fell on a branch which cut his stomach open.

They didn't explain the silver thing...  Maybe he bought the field, but threw the money on the temple floor instead of handing it over, then went to the field and hung himself before falling and bursting.  Sometimes it's fun treating the Bible as a fully divinely inspired record like some Christians do.

judging

Since both Jude ('Show mercy to those who doubt') and Jesus disagree, I'm strongly inclined to chalk 2 John 2 up to human fallibility. The direct teachings of Jesus are obviously pretty important to Christianity.

Yet Jesus (while upset) thanked God for hiding the truth from wise people.  According to the Bible, anyway.

conversion

Sure they would, but it's not like they can force me to believe. They'd only make me miserable.

Because you aren't five anymore.  The point of the strip was that parents teach their children these absolute truths at a young age, which is *the* reason kids tend to keep the religion of their parents.  Not specifically a problem with Christianity - but none of the comic was specifically directed at Christianity.

conversion 2

I'd probably go with living as I always do, which is pretty closely in line with the Bible and involves no human sacrifice, in order to demonstrate that I can be happy, healthy, and completely un-struck-down despite not making daily blood offerings. I am not a great people person though, which means that that wouldn't really be part of my expected task in the church.

Can you really be un-struck-down without a blood offering?  The Israelites couldn't.

I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

And one kid of the goats for a sin offering: to make an atonement for you.

The blood of animals, sprinkled on sinners, removed their sin.  I've read that the sin was transferred to the dead animals, but I don't think they had to suffer because they're just animals.
Of course this was foreshadowing the great human sacrifice Christianity is based around...  Where Jesus died for all of our sins (but only Christians).  He took all the sin, and went to Hell for it (for a little while).  And like most sacrifices, the followers proceeded to eat Jesus and drink his blood through the Eucharist.

Most Christians don't believe that the wine literally becomes his blood and the bread literally becomes his body, anymore.  Particularly once it was proven to be false, and also gross (because blood sacrifice is something those native peoples do, not us!).  But the ritual still has the same meaning - blood sacrifice to appease the wrathful God, and transfer our sins onto something innocent.

miracles

I have heard stories from close friends about miraculous healings, including one that completely nonplussed the doctors, if that helps. I tend to be conflicted about those stories though, because on the one hand I've never known these friends to lie, but on the other I've never read any reliable news reports on this kind of thing. Maybe people wave it off as sensationalist trash if they want to report it? No real idea.

I really doubt they're lying.  It's natural to take a mysterious occurrence and fit it into our understanding of the world.  Like a cynical person catches someone in a lie, and aha!  Their world-view has been validated.  Nobody wants to have been a dice-roll away from death.  Clearly they survived for a *reason*.

There's a lot we don't know about the human body, but we're always discovering more (or discarding theories which turned out to be wrong).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Makes a lot more sense than God fake-sacrificing a third of himself to appease his own sense of justice, and then only applying the salvation to those who spread his word - like some kind of Youtube chain letter.

That's partialism, Patrick.

[Lord Shonus]

Though there are a few warning signs for when it will start and a few have happened IIRC

Isnt' that the same mantra that has been repeated constantly for the past 2000 years?

Here's another question: who rules hell?

Yep, it was repeated constantly. The initial followers of Jesus believed that the end of times would come within their lifetimes (Spreading the religion giving them access to heaven in such a short time being a possible reason the religion got off the ground in the first place) and as for hell, the answer is God. God is the creator ex nihilo. Everything was made by him, and he is omnipotent. Nothing is ruled by anything else-all ultimately comes back to God, even the actions of the Devil.

In the case of "it will happen in your lifetime", the most common interpretation is that Jesus was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which the apostles misinterpreted as referring to the End Of Days because losing the Temple was so unthinkable to them that they believed it to be a metaphor.

[Baffler]

Of course this was foreshadowing the great human sacrifice Christianity is based around...  Where Jesus died for all of our sins (but only Christians).  He took all the sin, and went to Hell for it (for a little while).  And like most sacrifices, the followers proceeded to eat Jesus and drink his blood through the Eucharist.

Most Christians don't believe that the wine literally becomes his blood and the bread literally becomes his body, anymore.  Particularly once it was proven to be false, and also gross (because blood sacrifice is something those native peoples do, not us!).  But the ritual still has the same meaning - blood sacrifice to appease the wrathful God, and transfer our sins onto something innocent.

Proven false? How?

[Graknorke]

Of course this was foreshadowing the great human sacrifice Christianity is based around...  Where Jesus died for all of our sins (but only Christians).  He took all the sin, and went to Hell for it (for a little while).  And like most sacrifices, the followers proceeded to eat Jesus and drink his blood through the Eucharist.

Most Christians don't believe that the wine literally becomes his blood and the bread literally becomes his body, anymore.  Particularly once it was proven to be false, and also gross (because blood sacrifice is something those native peoples do, not us!).  But the ritual still has the same meaning - blood sacrifice to appease the wrathful God, and transfer our sins onto something innocent.

Proven false? How?

Did you know that the taste of blood is very easily distinguishable.

[Baffler]

No.

We've covered this ground before. It cannot be demonstrably proven true or false.

[TD1]

But isn't it "Drink this in remembrance of me" (Or so my minister said each time he gave the wine out) rather than "Drink this because it is me?"

[Graknorke]

No.

That is... not how being a thing works.

ninjedit: Also the thing dwarfy said.

[Baffler]

I don't see any problem. In short it basically says "It looks like X but is in fact Y."

[TD1]

Looks, tastes, is composed of the same molecular structure as, and smells like X? And the only thing that makes it Y is because it so happens to be in one place, namely a church? And every other instance it is X?