CircleOfSpirals

to No Robots, i appreciate your support, but i hold sketicism to the highest of my values, and i welcome it gratefully.

post tenebras lux wrote:

By the way, what's your view on the fact that Christians (well, theists generally) seem to like using blindness as an insult? Which I find insulting and very cowardly. Never mind that they like picking on the vulnerable, but why don't they pick on someone who can at least see who is attacking them? Any ideas?

i couldn't agree more. and there many other examples of this sort of abuse, such as the word "hypocrite", and i posted something along those lines not long ago.

i really have nothing to say to the people who so tediously picked it apart piece for piece other than touche', and i learned something today.

post tenebras lux

Well, I don't see why the Genevois should take the blame for that egotistic bigot - other than being guilty of giving him sanctuary in the first place. Yes I know it's common - that my complaint, I just wonder why in the 21st century - or 20th in the case of Brunner, theists still think they can fling it about as an insult.

It would be like atheists going around stating that all non-theists are self-medicating themselves on 'mental LSD' which gives them their delusions, etc.

post tenebras lux

No. But here in BC&H do you really want me to use an appeal to authority (you, the mod, in this case)? Cos then we may as well all pack up and go home: after all 200 popes can't be wrong - can they?

Astreja

I think Jesus was a mystic with yogic or Buddhist training.

He tried to open-source his knowledge to the common man. In doing so he ran afoul of the local priesthood, who had him killed as a rabble-rouser.

post tenebras lux

Surely you meant to say 'as a treat to their monopoly' rather than 'as a rabble-rouser'?

No Robots

Some here do basically make that charge:

Koyaanisqatsi

I seriously doubt that. There were many Jewish cult sects at the time and if you know anything about Jewish cult members, endless debate is their preferred method of resolving such issues.

The more likely scenario is, IMHO, the one I provided; namely that Jesus was the leader of an insurrectionist movement and was executed by the Romans for acts of sedition against Rome.

All of the anti-Jewish crap only makes sense from a Roman occupier's perspective and certainly not from a Jewish cult's perspective, no matter how radical or reformed the teachings.

You have to go back in time, before what we call "Christianity" was created and remove all the centuries of revisionist history they concocted to understand that there were no "Jews vs. Christians;" they were all Jews (including, of course, Jesus) and their only enemy was Rome.

Neither Rome nor the Sanhedrin would have given a shit if some local cult figure was walking around preaching peace and love and non-orthodoxy no matter how popular he may or may not have been. Rome especially. They would have only cared if he preached and/or acted directly against Rome and Rome's authority (i.e., if he were a seditionist; what Bush would call a "terrorist" and Jesus' comrades a "freedom fighter").

Do you think Bush would give a shit, for example, if some local Iraqi Shiia started going around preaching "Render unto Bush what is Bush's" and "He who is without sin, cast the first stone," etc? Or if this same Shiia "holy man" started calling himself "King of Iraq?"

No. The only reason Rome would have executed Jesus (beside murder) would have been because he was the leader of a seditionist group large enough to have caused significant disruption to the Roman occupation and certainly not because he went around preaching non-Jewish Orthodoxy and to "turn the other cheek." You could't get more pro-Roman than that (which is why its such a red flag, btw).

It's simply preposterous and obviously the result of the delusions of later cult followers. Their god was so important and so feared and everyone could just see that he would destroy them all if they didn't destroy him first, blah, blah, blah. In fact, it had to be that way since that's the only thing that could misdirect any later cult members from asking the simple question of how could their Messiah (their God) be killed.

It's childish, two dimensional deification (literally) and it simply would not have happened like that.

:huh:

CaliNORML

Ohhhhhh Yes, horribly so. We were never meant to diefy HIM.

Let alone listen to those who never got what he said, exampled, and practiced. They were the setting of a bad example, and only would those people be worthy of honor if they had stood up and given their own lives for him.

Those who tried to teach after he died who deserted him and could not grasp the whole incident have caused some of the worst suffering in the world. The witch trails, the inquisitions, and the crusades; yet we still believe them? How foolish we are, and why I quit the church, all of them.

They speak of Acts, and they themselves refused to commit the acts they speak of, hypocrites in my opinion.

The story had nothing at all to do with Jesus, it was all about us, yet because of vanity and pride, we focus insted on him, and try to ignore the real lessens he said, how sad.

What truly scares me is that the ones who so curropted the mesage, and bought the lies of rotten examples now run the government. Is not that what killed him in the first place?

KMS