Support NeoGAF

[evolvaer]

and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would have probably been murdered for sharing a photo of himself on his twitter handle

Sharing a picture of yourself isn't a sin in islam. Back then people didn't have photographs so everything was painted. The arabs at the time didn't want their prophet to turn into a God as what happened with christianity. So they forbade paintings of him, and forbade his own personal quotes from being written down so as not to be confused with the holy text he was preaching.

It's a cultural difference.

 

[evolvaer]

Everyone would have complained that Jesus is a white male and not a black women.

Jesus, the historical figure would have been born in the middle east, so he would probably not be a white european looking man.

 

[showernota]

"despite its importance to the account of the virgin birth of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, scholars agree that it has nothing to do with virginity.[2]"

Almah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As for those 72 Jewish scholars, that´s just a myth imo.

This isn't a compelling argument. No one is going to be swayed by an opinion, which is also all Singer has too.

 

[jdforge]

If he had come today we would crucify him again, and big tech would do everything in its power to make sure you can't find any videos of miracles he performed, and scientists on hand to explain "these are just tricks/illusions."


Part of the message is that the people that killed him knew he was divine but killed him anyways because he was a threat to their power.

The people that killed him as in The Romans who then assimilated Christianity (after realising they couldn’t kill them all) giving birth to the Roman Catholic Church who now worship the same Christ that they put to death?

 

[Taxexemption]

The people that killed him as in The Romans who then assimilated Christianity (after realising they couldn’t kill them all) giving birth to the Roman Catholic Church who now worship the same Christ that they put to death?

I was referring to the priests that called for his death. Jesus was popular among regular people. It was the kind of person that saw him heal a man and asked the question "is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" They didn't ask that kind of question because they really wondered whether breaking some technical rule was a legitimate moral problem, they were trying to trap him with a logical question so that they could condemn him. The priests were not able to perform the miracles that Jesus could, they were jealous of his ability, and popularity, he was a threat to their power. Pontius Pilate, representing the Romans, didn't really care. It was his preference not to kill him, but he did so to keep order in the area he was in charge of because it was being demanded of him.


In modern times I think a lot more people would be calling for his death, particularly for his condemnation of adultery, divorce, and various topics related to cooming. Others would be threatened by his questions about our economic system. People in power in our government, and people who are heavily invested in society as it is would be calling for his death, because he would be a threat to their power.

 

[Rentahamster]

In modern times I think a lot more people would be calling for his death, particularly for his condemnation of adultery, divorce, and various topics related to cooming. Others would be threatened by his questions about our economic system. People in power in our government, and people who are heavily invested in society as it is would be calling for his death, because he would be a threat to their power.

In these modern times, which current condemners of adultery, divorce, and various topics related to cooming is experiencing a lot of people calling for their deaths?

 

[Taxexemption]

In these modern times, which current condemners of adultery, divorce, and various topics related to cooming is experiencing a lot of people calling for their deaths?

People feel safe to ignore or disregard people making these types of statements, because it's merely an argument or position about what people should do. Jesus clearly had an authority that the powers that be did not, which was threatening to them. It's not the same. I can argue for a variety of controversial opinions and me being merely some random internet poster people may disagree, but not really care or feel like anything important is on the line.

 

[Rentahamster]

People feel safe to ignore or disregard people making these types of statements, because it's merely an argument or position about what people should do. Jesus clearly had an authority that the powers that be did not, which was threatening to them. It's not the same. I can argue for a variety of controversial opinions and me being merely some random internet poster people may disagree, but not really care or feel like anything important is on the line.

Doesn't that mean that the necessary factor for credible death threats is holding power that is a threat to the powers that be? Not necessarily the content of their speech (condemnation of adultery, divorce, and various topics related to cooming, etc)

If that's the case, what makes Jesus any more special than our historical figures who actually were assassinated, probably because they were a threat to the establishment power structure? MLK, Malcom X, JFK, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma, Gandhi, among others)

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Same with Jesus' mom sayin she didn't have unprotected sex with multiple people and then just magically got pregnant. Both stories are fucking ridiculous.

Of course they are, only one involves pedophilia. I feel bad for Joseph, at the end of the day his girl got 'Oh Yeah'd by some Roman soldiers, but Aliyah was fucking 9 years old.

Mohammed (fucker was a pedophile) was a fucking pedophile.

Edit- Her name was Aisha, and she was still 9 years old when sold as a sex-slave to Mohammed.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Why are big-bad Atheists too fucking terrified to point out that Mohammed fucked a nine year old? Is it because of the death threats by "mostly peaceful" people who will "mostly peacefully" murder you?

 

[Soodanim]

That's a very evil-focused thought exercise.

The concept of evil introduces a moral absolute, otherwise nothing could be considered evil. Morals aren't physical, they are not tangible, where do they come from? Humanism/materialism/Atheism can't resolve this.

Can you confirm God is not willing, does not, or cannot prevent evil? The world could be a much worse place, there is really no barometer for how bad life could really be. The reverse of this thought experiment is God should control everything, which would include everyone. Would it make more sense if God were a puppetmaster, and we were simply automatons in a perfect world? That would be a very unsettling kind of god. Humans have free will, and are sinful by nature.

Does 'evil' exist, or is 'evil' the absence of good? Would you say the hole in a doughnut exists, or is it just the absence of doughnut? The same could be said for a shadow and light. Evil is not a thing or a force, it is an absence of good. Everything created by God is good, evil is just the absence of good. I'm sure most will disagree, but there is logic to this.

Mankind's sinful nature causes that absence of good, the appearance of evil. Mankind has free will, otherwise there would be no reason for us to exist. If we all trusted Jesus as our savior and followed God there would be much more good.

A moral absolute is a concept made up to defend the idea that the rules some people made up for their theology are correct. Morals in general are, quite aptly in the current context, best explained by Jesus in the stories by the quote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That doesn't need divinity, it's a succinctly put summation of the non-theistic concept that if people don't do things they wouldn't want done to them then that's morals pretty much done. It's a concept taught to kids at an early age, when parents say "Don't do that, you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you."

The first version of the quote I posted was just what I got from Wiki. I actually prefer the version of it I first heard, which focuses less on the concept of evil but rather the aspects of a god that allows it:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.​

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.​

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?​

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ​

The whole concept of Jesus being sent is best looked at from God's point of view. He knows all, right? So he makes humans, and knows exactly how it's going to play out. He knows about The Fall, he knows about everything before it happens. Because he's God. So then it all goes tits up on Earth a couple of times (he knew this was going to happen so I don't know why he was pissed about it) then eventually sent Jesus to forgive us for our sins. Again, sins he knew about because he's God. So the omniscient, omnipotent God made everything and knew how it was going to play out, but got mad about the way something he designed to play out played out. Free will doesn't top omniscience. If he gets credit for everything, he gets credit for everything, because he set it up like that. He could have scrapped it and started again when it went wrong in the Garden of Eden. Again, a system where he sets up the possibility of failure then gets mad about the failure he set up.

Why are big-bad Atheists too fucking terrified to point out that Mohammed fucked a nine year old? Is it because of the death threats by "mostly peaceful" people who will "mostly peacefully" murder you?

You've said it three times, two of which were in one sentence. No one else needs to say it, you're flying that flag well enough by yourself.

Despite being in the title, this thread is mostly about Christianity simply because it's more prevalent in the Western countries that make up the bulk of the site. So you need to find people who not only want to talk about Islam but are familiar enough with the theology/mythology, in particular that specific piece of the story, to want to comment on it. Look at the ban list. People aren't afraid to say what they think here, so fear isn't the motivator you're saying it is - they're just talking about something else.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

A moral absolute is a concept made up to defend the idea that the rules some people made up for their theology are correct. Morals in general are, quite aptly in the current context, best explained by Jesus in the stories by the quote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That doesn't need divinity, it's a succinctly put summation of the non-theistic concept that if people don't do things they wouldn't want done to them then that's morals pretty much done. It's a concept taught to kids at an early age, when parents say "Don't do that, you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you."

The first version of the quote I posted was just what I got from Wiki. I actually prefer the version of it I first heard, which focuses less on the concept of evil but rather the aspects of a god that allows it:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.​

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.​

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?​

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ​

The whole concept of Jesus being sent as best looked at from God's point of view. He knows all, right? So he makes humans, and knows exactly how it's going to play out. He knows about The Fall, he knows about everything before it happens. Because he's God. So then it all goes tits up on Earth a couple of times (he knew this was going to happen so I don't know why he was got pissed about it) then eventually sent Jesus to forgive us for our sins. Again, sins he knew about because he's God. So the omniscient, omnipotent God made everything and knew how it was going to play out, but got mad about the way something he designed to play out played out. Free will doesn't top omniscience. If he gets credit for everything, he gets credit for everything, because he set it up like that. He could have scrapped it and started again when it went wrong in the Garden of Eden. Again, a system where he sets up the possibility of failure then gets mad about the failure he set up.

You've said it three times, two of which were in one sentence. No one else needs to say it, you're flying that flag well enough by yourself.

Despite being in the title, this thread is mostly about Christianity simply because it's more prevalent in the Western countries that make up the bulk of the site. So you need to find people who not only want to talk about Islam but are familiar enough with the theology/mythology, in particular that specific piece of the story to want to comment on it. Look at the ban list. People aren't afraid to say what they think here, so fear isn't the motivator you're saying it is - they're just talking about something else.

Brochacho, I want you to name me one Islamic country where I won't be murdered by the State as an open homosexual.

 

[HoodWinked]

There is probably a calculation where you can actually determine things that are subjective into an objective reality if you actually had the ability to account for all inputs like a higher being.

Anyways with that framework it could be that this period in time would provide the most fair assessment of human free will to make a determination on believing. If it happened in more modern times maybe it would be to obvious rendering it not a choice at all.

 

[jdforge]

I was referring to the priests that called for his death. Jesus was popular among regular people. It was the kind of person that saw him heal a man and asked the question "is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" They didn't ask that kind of question because they really wondered whether breaking some technical rule was a legitimate moral problem, they were trying to trap him with a logical question so that they could condemn him. The priests were not able to perform the miracles that Jesus could, they were jealous of his ability, and popularity, he was a threat to their power. Pontius Pilate, representing the Romans, didn't really care. It was his preference not to kill him, but he did so to keep order in the area he was in charge of because it was being demanded of him.


In modern times I think a lot more people would be calling for his death, particularly for his condemnation of adultery, divorce, and various topics related to cooming. Others would be threatened by his questions about our economic system. People in power in our government, and people who are heavily invested in society as it is would be calling for his death, because he would be a threat to their power.

If you are referring to Caiaphas, the High Priest at the time, who was appointed to that position by Rome, during the Roman Empires occupation of Jerusalem.

Rome put Christ to death.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

I mean, it's not like Iranian hang queers.
Or ISIS people throw us off of buildings
Or Iraqis superglue homo's assholes shut and forcefeed them laxatives so their intestines explode, and people die of septic shock.

Edit - I need to bring up 40k or talk about scaphism to get into how Islam considers us. fags. It's almost like they're going for trophies for the most fucked up ways to kill us

 

[Taxexemption]

If you are referring to Caiaphas, the High Priest at the time, who was appointed to that position by Rome, during the Roman Empires occupation of Jerusalem.

Rome put Christ to death.

Because it was being demanded of Rome by people who were jealous of him, the priests. I'm assuming you've never read any of the Gospels? It's very clear who was trying to kill Jesus and why. What do you think of the parable of the tenants, what was that about? Have you read the gospels?

 

[jdforge]

Because it was being demanded of Rome by people who were jealous of him, the priests. I'm assuming you've never read any of the Gospels? It's very clear who was trying to kill Jesus and why. What do you think of the parable of the tenants, what was that about? Have you read the gospels?

The history on what happened is clear.

High Priest appointed by Roman Empire demands Jesus must die.

Kangaroo court proceeding held by Rome.

Roman Emperor puts Jesus to death.

Sorry that doesn’t fit your narrative.

 

[Taxexemption]

The history on what happened is clear.

High Priest appointed by Roman Empire demands Jesus must die.

Kangaroo court proceeding held by Rome.

Roman Emperor puts Jesus to death.

Sorry that doesn’t fit your narrative.

What was the parable of the tenants about? Have you read the Gospels?

 

[Soodanim]

Brochacho, I want you to name me one Islamic country where I won't be murdered by the State as an open homosexual.

If there are any, I’m not aware of them. It’s a damn shame, some of those countries are beautiful places.

I mean, it's not like Iranian hang queers.
Or ISIS people throw us off of buildings
Or Iraqis superglue homo's assholes shut and forcefeed them laxatives so their intestines explode, and people die of septic shock.

I’m going to write you a prescription for 40g of staythefuckaway. Take whenever you feel the urge to hold hands with a dude in Iraq

 

[strange headache]

Why are big-bad Atheists too fucking terrified to point out that Mohammed fucked a nine year old? Is it because of the death threats by "mostly peaceful" people who will "mostly peacefully" murder you?

Let's see... should I care more about the sexual misdeeds of a random Arab dude who lived 1.500 years ago or should I care about the ongoing organized sexual abuse committed by the Catholic Church that robbed thousands of kids of their childhood?

 

[jdforge]

What was the parable of the tenants about? Have you read the Gospels?

You do understand that Jerusalem was under Roman occupation rule?

You do also understand that nothing happened without Rome saying so?

That Rome persecuted and committed mass genocide on Christians until realising Christianity had grown so popular that they assimilated it into their Empire to stay relevant.

Therefore, Rome put him to death. Again, apologies you are struggling to reconcile that.

 

[Taxexemption]

You do understand that Jerusalem was under Roman occupation rule?

You do also understand that nothing happened without Rome saying so?

That Rome persecuted and committed mass genocide on Christians until realising Christianity had grown so popular that they assimilated it into their Empire to stay relevant.

Therefore, Rome put him to death. Again, apologies you are struggling to reconcile that.

Have you read the Gospels? What do you think the parable of the tenants is about?

 

[jdforge]

Have you read the Gospels? What do you think the parable of the tenants is about?

Bloody hell. Take care!

 

[AgentP]

 

[Soodanim]

Have you read the Gospels? What do you think the parable of the tenants is about?

A story from the inside perspective is always going to be more convincing than the reality of the wider world. The same goes for the people inside of a religion. I’m sure people who believe really do believe it, and I’m sure the stories make sense to them (of course they do, their job is to be convincing).

Christianity is no more or less important than any in the wider spectrum of religions (and those ~2000 deities not mentioned) in terms of its validity, and its rise or fall is due to the sociopolitical workings of the societies it comes into contact with. It’s not divine influence, it’s the right people in the right places being convinced to believe (or even just push) X instead of Y and history being written by the victors. Christmas being 25/12 is a prime example of it doing whatever is needed to survive. Divine truth’s influence wouldn’t need dates to coincide with winter solstice celebrations to help take hold. It’s purpose is as a tool, which is why it’s reshaped over and over again to be used in different ways.

 

[sonomamashine]

If that's the case, then it's God's intention that His word is unclear and inaccessible to most humans throughout time and space (depending on your beliefs, that puts most of the humans to ever have existed into Hell through no fault of their own).

A creator that knows every in and out and possibility and is not limited by time or space knows how to craft a perfectly comprehensible and persuasive argument that is 100% effective on 100% of humans. Since that is not the case, the creator you speak of either actually is limited by time or space, or, is intentionally deceiving us AKA lying to us.

Maybe you didn't read the right book, maybe those who worship GOD ain't stupid, must be something out there you didn't read.

Why would you need to do that to understand the perfect word of God? Shouldn't it be perfectly understandable? This goes to the point I was making in my post.

Yes GOD made it perfectly understandable, why do you think people worship him ? (of course it depends on what you read)

Well actually the first prophet to actually transmit the the word of G-D in a clear and revealed way to an entire nation was Moses. Let's actually give credit where credit is due shall we.

Before Moses there was Abraham and Noah, but they would communicate monotheism, ethics and morals to singular people. So while they were also Prophets, it was with Moses that G-D was actually clearly revealed.

Wrong people knew about GOD since ADAM & EVE, because they descended from heaven.

Please dont put Jesus and Mohammad in the same breathe.

Whether Jesus had magic or not. The guy literally devoted his adult life to helping others, assuming he was real.

the other was a 7th century warlord who took Christianity and concocted a religion to further his own political ambitions, which included mass slaughter.

Hmm I wonder how a man ‘dreaming of angels’ and slaughtering to thousands, while saying but peace would go down in 2021. Not well.

You need to read real books instead of internet articles, all due respect this is all wrong.

He’d have done far better by actually existing.

Always been the major flaw in his plans, that one.

How could you be so sure he's not existing, because you never saw him ?

I don't know why G-d chose certain times and certain people. As a practicing Catholic, I've rarely heard anyone talk about revelations or end times and the specific meanings of those passages because it's unknowable.

I'd also say christianity has done pretty well even though it started in age devoid of modern mass media.

In my religion i know about revelations & end of time.

I love how god is supposedly an all knowing entity who knows everything, including everyone's future, down to every microsecond of their future lives.

But he still needs you to "perform" and "test" you so you can prove yourself to him... Even though we already established that god already knows the results beforehand.


The whole concept of "testing" is completely human. Humans aren't all-knowing beings. So in order for a human to know something, they have to try/test/research. The concept of testing a thing, to prove something about it, is useful only to someone who seeks knowledge about that thing. Why would god, who already possess all knowledge, need to test anything at all?

Basically, your fate is sealed before you are even born. Whether you end up in hell or heaven, god already knows beforehand and you can't do anything to change it, because that would mean you can prove god wrong. And we all know god can't be wrong. So what's the point of this whole shitshow again? Especially from god's own perspective?

This is one of the many contradictions of religion. They can't even follow the rules of their own fiction.

You are talking about al jabria, believes that a person is leaded / forced and have no choice because he has no power to choose his actions, which is wrong.
It's like GOD threw you in the ocean and told you not to drawn, this is a misconception of GOD.
GOD knows the future and YOU decide of your own future and that's the power of GOD, you can't understand because your mind can't process, because you didn't knew he's capable of that, you kinda treating GOD like what a human can do, which is wrong.

 

[TheAdlerian]

Jesus, the historical figure would have been born in the middle east, so he would probably not be a white european looking man.

Mideast people are white.

Arab people are mixed with black people.

 

[kuncol02]

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Luke 12:47-48

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

 

[TheAdlerian]

Luke 12:47-48

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

None of that applies to Christians.

Jesus said that all sins are equal.

He additionally says that even negative thinking about your brother is a sin, meaning it's equal to murder, etc. So, there is no judging or beating anyone for anything.

 

[sonomamashine]

Jesus said that all sins are equal.

He additionally says that even negative thinking about your brother is a sin, meaning it's equal to murder, etc. So, there is no judging or beating anyone for anything.

Not all sins are the same, this make no sense.

 

[showernota]

A moral absolute is a concept made up to defend the idea that the rules some people made up for their theology are correct. Morals in general are, quite aptly in the current context, best explained by Jesus in the stories by the quote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That doesn't need divinity, it's a succinctly put summation of the non-theistic concept that if people don't do things they wouldn't want done to them then that's morals pretty much done. It's a concept taught to kids at an early age, when parents say "Don't do that, you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you."

You’re focused on human behavior to moral truth, rather than the concept of moral truth itself. You’re saying some guys thousands of years ago made up morals. Before that, people did not have a conscience?

Do you have children? It’s an extreme belief to think all morals are taught. What about the children who are naturally good? Why do we perceive them as being naturally good? Evolution is survival of the fittest. At what point did that change, and what benefit does it give us?

The first version of the quote I posted was just what I got from Wiki. I actually prefer the version of it I first heard, which focuses less on the concept of evil but rather the aspects of a god that allows it:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.​

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.​

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?​

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ​

The whole concept of Jesus being sent is best looked at from God's point of view. He knows all, right? So he makes humans, and knows exactly how it's going to play out. He knows about The Fall, he knows about everything before it happens. Because he's God. So then it all goes tits up on Earth a couple of times (he knew this was going to happen so I don't know why he was pissed about it)

God was not pissed, He was grieved.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

then eventually sent Jesus to forgive us for our sins. Again, sins he knew about because he's God. So the omniscient, omnipotent God made everything and knew how it was going to play out, but got mad about the way something he designed to play out played out. Free will doesn't top omniscience. If he gets credit for everything, he gets credit for everything, because he set it up like that. He could have scrapped it and started again when it went wrong in the Garden of Eden. Again, a system where he sets up the possibility of failure then gets mad about the failure he set up.

Again, you’re arguing that it would be more normal for God to have made us automatons and played with us like dolls. Free will means no determinism. Foreknowledge does not mean causation.

How does God ‘scrapping it all’ make more sense? God can’t make a mistake, so your preferred version of a god is already illogical. God is merciful, which is why He clothed Adam and Eve and designed a plan for redeeming mankind.

Would you have a child, knowing it will need it’s diaper changed before it’s potty-trained, then ‘scrap’ the child when it’s time to change the diaper and start over with a new one? That would be crazy behavior. The other option would be to get a robot baby with no actual life.

Let's see... should I care more about the sexual misdeeds of a random Arab dude who lived 1.500 years ago or should I care about the ongoing organized sexual abuse committed by the Catholic Church that robbed thousands of kids of their childhood?

Why are you comparing the ‘prophet’ of Muslims to the catholic church? Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare muhammad to Jesus?

You do understand that Jerusalem was under Roman occupation rule?

You do also understand that nothing happened without Rome saying so?

That Rome persecuted and committed mass genocide on Christians until realising Christianity had grown so popular that they assimilated it into their Empire to stay relevant.

Therefore, Rome put him to death. Again, apologies you are struggling to reconcile that.

Matthew 27:15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished.
16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.
17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” [They] all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather [that] a tumult was rising, he took water and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see [to it.]”

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood [be] on us and on our children.”

None of that applies to Christians.

Jesus said that all sins are equal.

Where did He say that?

John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Matthew 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy [against] the Spirit will not be forgiven men.

 

[TheAdlerian]

Not all sins are the same, this make no sense.

Jesus said it in the Sermon on the Mount.

It makes sense because jews used to basically sell forgiveness via the priests. So, you punch someone, you hate your neighbor, and if you pay fifty bucks it goes away. Jesus was saying that it's not that easy and you can't buy your way out of sin, you have to genuinely regret it and ask forgiveness of god.

Also, having hate in your mind/heart is the same as doing real sin. So, you can't let stuff in your mind pollute your spiritual goodness.

Stealing a grape is a sin equal to murder. That makes sense because if a "little sin" is okay a person may be compelled to do a whole lot of sinning. A person who secretly hates everyone is damaging themselves and not loving creation (others) so a lot of damage is done. That's why Jesus said there are thought crimes and no sin is little.

So, all of it makes sense.

 

[Taxexemption]

Jesus said it in the Sermon on the Mount.

It makes sense because jews used to basically sell forgiveness via the priests. So, you punch someone, you hate your neighbor, and if you pay fifty bucks it goes away. Jesus was saying that it's not that easy and you can't buy your way out of sin, you have to genuinely regret it and ask forgiveness of god.

Also, having hate in your mind/heart is the same as doing real sin. So, you can't let stuff in your mind pollute your spiritual goodness.

Stealing a grape is a sin equal to murder. That makes sense because if a "little sin" is okay a person may be compelled to do a whole lot of sinning. A person who secretly hates everyone is damaging themselves and not loving creation (others) so a lot of damage is done. That's why Jesus said there are thought crimes and no sin is little.

So, all of it makes sense.

Why does the Bible describe certain sins as "Crying out to heaven for vengeance?" Why does it make distinctions if it's all the same?

 

[TheAdlerian]

You’re focused on human behavior to moral truth, rather than the concept of moral truth itself. You’re saying some guys thousands of years ago made up morals. Before that, people did not have a conscience?

Do you have children? It’s an extreme belief to think all morals are taught. What about the children who are naturally good? Why do we perceive them as being naturally good? Evolution is survival of the fittest. At what point did that change, and what benefit does it give us?

God was not pissed, He was grieved.


Again, you’re arguing that it would be more normal for God to have made us automatons and played with us like dolls. Free will means no determinism. Foreknowledge does not mean causation.

How does God ‘scrapping it all’ make more sense? God can’t make a mistake, so your preferred version of a god is already illogical. God is merciful, which is why He clothed Adam and Eve and designed a plan for redeeming mankind.

Would you have a child, knowing it will need it’s diaper changed before it’s potty-trained, then ‘scrap’ the child when it’s time to change the diaper and start over with a new one? That would be crazy behavior. The other option would be to get a robot baby with no actual life.




Why are you comparing the ‘prophet’ of Muslims to the catholic church? Wouldn’t it make more sense to compare muhammad to Jesus?








Where did He say that?

Dude, no one ever seems to know what Jesus said regarding the few simple things he asked of people, it's in the Sermon on the Mount. It's the only time Jesus speaks in the Bible and governs literally everything in the Bible. For instance, if it says you can kill people on page 12 of the Bible and on page 800 Jesus says, no more eye for an eye, then his comments invalidate all previous comments justifying violence.

The Bible is a BOOK and is sequential so the comments at the end define the beginning comments.

According to Jesus you cannot harm or judge anyone and that includes your thoughts.

 

[TheAdlerian]

Why does the Bible describe certain sins as "Crying out to heaven for vengeance?" Why does it make distinctions if it's all the same?

Jesus said that eye of an eye is over at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. Also, you aren't allowed to think negatively about your brother, so you must try hard to remain neutral about negative people. He say that if someone does something negative to you, it's your job to befriend them. That's the if a man makes you walk a mile, then walk another with him, comment. It says not to judge others or you will be judged for defying all the other stuff I just said.

The Sermon on the Mount defines every single thing in the Bible. If it violates something Jesus said there, it is not valid.

So, if some crime is bad, then god will be the one to make what is necessary happen, not people.

 

[Taxexemption]

Jesus said that eye of an eye is over at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. Also, you aren't allowed to think negatively about your brother, so you must try hard to remain neutral about negative people. He say that if someone does something negative to you, it's your job to befriend them. That's the if a man makes you walk a mile, then walk another with him, comment. It says not to judge others or you will be judged for defying all the other stuff I just said.

The Sermon on the Mount defines every single thing in the Bible. If it violates something Jesus said there, it is not valid.

So, if some crime is bad, then god will be the one to make what is necessary happen, not people.

I'm not saying that it's okay to hate people. I'm saying that the Bible appears to make distinctions between different sins, and identifies murder as a particularly bad one. I think it's pretty clear that all sin isn't the same. That doesn't make some sin okay, but murdering someone is clearly worse than having negative thoughts about them or various other things that people do that are bad. When I read the sermon on the mount what I see is Jesus calling people to a higher standard, and attempting to humble them. A lot of people at this time had a "rules lawyer" kind of view of morality where if they weren't technically violating the letter of the law they thought they were being morally virtuous. Jesus is setting a higher standard for moral behavior by saying that it is wrong to hate, I don't think that he is saying anything that was meant to be construed as "stealing a grape is the same as murder."

 

[showernota]

Dude, no one ever seems to know what Jesus said regarding the few simple things he asked of people, it's in the Sermon on the Mount. It's the only time Jesus speaks in the Bible and governs literally everything in the Bible.

This is completely untrue. Jesus speaks in all sorts of places. Samaria, the temple, the wilderness, Peter’s home, Gethsemane...I can keep going.

For instance, if it says you can kill people on page 12 of the Bible and on page 800 Jesus says, no more eye for an eye, then his comments invalidate all previous comments justifying violence.

Or the Mosaic Law is applying to the judicial system of theocratic Israel (which is the subject of your page 12), which the Pharisees began applying to interpersonal relationships, and Jesus is revealing that God does not want personal retaliation. Love and mercy.

 

[kuncol02]

Jesus said that eye of an eye is over at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. Also, you aren't allowed to think negatively about your brother, so you must try hard to remain neutral about negative people. He say that if someone does something negative to you, it's your job to befriend them. That's the if a man makes you walk a mile, then walk another with him, comment. It says not to judge others or you will be judged for defying all the other stuff I just said.

The Sermon on the Mount defines every single thing in the Bible. If it violates something Jesus said there, it is not valid.

So, if some crime is bad, then god will be the one to make what is necessary happen, not people.

Even Sermon on the Mount makes different degrees of sin and punishment:
" ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire"

 

[nkarafo]

You are talking about al jabria, believes that a person is leaded / forced and have no choice because he has no power to choose his actions, which is wrong.
It's like GOD threw you in the ocean and told you not to drawn, this is a misconception of GOD.
GOD knows the future and YOU decide of your own future and that's the power of GOD, you can't understand because your mind can't process, because you didn't knew he's capable of that, you kinda treating GOD like what a human can do, which is wrong.

Ah, the classic "you can't explain god with our logic" everytime a paradox or contradiction appears.

Hard pass.

 

[TheAdlerian]

I'm not saying that it's okay to hate people. I'm saying that the Bible appears to make distinctions between different sins, and identifies murder as a particularly bad one. I think it's pretty clear that all sin isn't the same. That doesn't make some sin okay, but murdering someone is clearly worse than having negative thoughts about them or various other things that people do that are bad. When I read the sermon on the mount what I see is Jesus calling people to a higher standard, and attempting to humble them. A lot of people at this time had a "rules lawyer" kind of view of morality where if they weren't technically violating the letter of the law they thought they were being morally virtuous. Jesus is setting a higher standard for moral behavior by saying that it is wrong to hate, I don't think that he is saying anything that was meant to be construed as "stealing a grape is the same as murder."

That's the invalid "Jewish" part of the Bible.

In Star Wars is Darth Vader bad or good?

He's good, because in the end he is good.

Jesus is the MESSIAH which is a magical being who came to save jews and humanity. So, in the begging of the story the jews are all about wars, punishing people, judging over jews, they believe outsiders are infidel scum because they aren't jews, jews even have to have special haircuts, etc and Jesus said to stop doing all of that.

He saved the jews and humanity by telling them to stop hiring people, stop hating, stop trying to be different, stop hustling what sin is, and stop being prejudice toward outsiders.

That is the point of Jesus.

When you read the Bible, you actually have to read it. You do not jump around picking out quotes. They are "out of context" because the Sermon on the Mount is the context. It's the filter all other things in the Bible must be run through.

 

[TheAdlerian]

Even Sermon on the Mount makes different degrees of sin and punishment:
" ‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell of fire"

Yes.

Before that he says all sins are equal.

He is mentioning what people think of as little sins, such as thinking, but then says they are not little. You will go to hell for negative thoughts just as quickly as if you murdered someone.

 

[sonomamashine]

Jesus said it in the Sermon on the Mount.

It makes sense because jews used to basically sell forgiveness via the priests. So, you punch someone, you hate your neighbor, and if you pay fifty bucks it goes away. Jesus was saying that it's not that easy and you can't buy your way out of sin, you have to genuinely regret it and ask forgiveness of god.

selling forgiveness is absurd, yes you have to genuinely regret it and ask forgiveness of GOD.

Also, having hate in your mind/heart is the same as doing real sin. So, you can't let stuff in your mind pollute your spiritual goodness.

No it's not the same, having some bad taught's in your mind/heart is not the same as doing it, you might back off and say to yourself that it's bad, BUT if you decide to sin and something prevented you from doing it is the same as doing it.

Stealing a grape is a sin equal to murder. That makes sense because if a "little sin" is okay a person may be compelled to do a whole lot of sinning. A person who secretly hates everyone is damaging themselves and not loving creation (others) so a lot of damage is done. That's why Jesus said there are thought crimes and no sin is little.

So, all of it makes sense.

there are differing degrees of sin and evil. The same thing applies to degrees of goodness. Deeds have weight assigned to them and how much they weight depends on various factors. If all sins were the same then there would be only one level of Hell and we know that this is not the case.
Pushing someone is not equal to killing
insulting someone is not equal to rape
etc...

 

[showernota]

Ah, the classic "you can't explain god with our logic" everytime a paradox or contradiction appears.

Hard pass.

That’s the god of Islam, to be clear.

 

[TheAdlerian]

This is completely untrue. Jesus speaks in all sorts of places. Samaria, the temple, the wilderness, Peter’s home, Gethsemane...I can keep going.

Or the Mosaic Law is applying to the judicial system of theocratic Israel (which is the subject of your page 12), which the Pharisees began applying to interpersonal relationships, and Jesus is revealing that God does not want personal retaliation. Love and mercy.

Please stop being stupid

Jesus might say things in other areas but the Sermon on the Mount is where he is saying what Christianity is about and what you must do. All other stuff could be removed from the Bible and if you just read that you would understand the religion.

 

[showernota]

Yes.

Before that he says all sins are equal.

He is mentioning what people think of as little sins, such as thinking, but then says they are not little. You will go to hell for negative thoughts just as quickly as if you murdered someone.

Reference some Scripture. It’s even broken up into chapters and verses for easy access.

 

[DeepBreath87]

I'm not saying that it's okay to hate people. I'm saying that the Bible appears to make distinctions between different sins, and identifies murder as a particularly bad one. I think it's pretty clear that all sin isn't the same. That doesn't make some sin okay, but murdering someone is clearly worse than having negative thoughts about them or various other things that people do that are bad. When I read the sermon on the mount what I see is Jesus calling people to a higher standard, and attempting to humble them. A lot of people at this time had a "rules lawyer" kind of view of morality where if they weren't technically violating the letter of the law they thought they were being morally virtuous. Jesus is setting a higher standard for moral behavior by saying that it is wrong to hate, I don't think that he is saying anything that was meant to be construed as "stealing a grape is the same as murder."

All sin is not equal to us as human beings. Obviously. But we are not God. To God, all sin is equivalently disqualifying. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. It basically saying because no one is perfect, we all need God’s grace. It’s about making sure we don’t elevate ourselves above others because being a Christian isn’t about something a person does but about having faith in something God did for that person.

I’m not dogmatically religious, but I have a pretty deep appreciation for Christianity. I struggle with the Bible sometimes, but I think the stuff about God’s grace and how we should treat other people is inspiring stuff.

 

[TheAdlerian]

Reference some Scripture. It’s even broken up into chapters are verses for easy access.

I have referrenced this shit a thousand times on the internet.

If you are talking about Christianity and don't know what was said in the Sermon on the Mount, you're a goddamn moron. Please do your own research and reading as I am not doing it for you.

If you can't figure out that if the god of the universe says "Don't kill anyone" he is supposed to mean it. So, no matter what it say before he says that, it doesn't mean you can kill people. It's the simple logic of how to read a book.

 

[showernota]

I have referrenced this shit a thousand times on the internet.

If you are talking about Christianity and don't know what was said in the Sermon on the Mount, you're a goddamn moron. Please do your own research and reading as I am not doing it for you.

If you can't figure out that if the god of the universe says "Don't kill anyone" he is supposed to mean it. So, no matter what it say before he says that, it doesn't mean you can kill people. It's the simple logic of how to read a book.

Chapter and verse, please.

Your argument was that Jesus said all sins are equal, let’s stay focused.

 

[Taxexemption]

I have referrenced this shit a thousand times on the internet.

If you are talking about Christianity and don't know what was said in the Sermon on the Mount, you're a goddamn moron. Please do your own research and reading as I am not doing it for you.

If you can't figure out that if the god of the universe says "Don't kill anyone" he is supposed to mean it. So, no matter what it say before he says that, it doesn't mean you can kill people. It's the simple logic of how to read a book.

You are an atheist or non-Christian who just wants to criticize others right? Otherwise why are you quoting the bible and damning people in the name of God while basically calling them a fool? It's hard to take you seriously.

 

[sonomamashine]

Ah, the classic "you can't explain god with our logic" everytime a paradox or contradiction appears.

Hard pass.

I agree every time you get caught you use that "classic" phrase, you can't comprehend that GOD is superior to human is your choice.
To me it's not hard to understand that GOD knows the future and that you are free to decide to do what ever you want, you can't understand because you comparing him to a HUMAN you don't know that GOD is powerful and can do that.
Not so hard to understand.