List the BAD things about Jesus

Yes, Jesus wanted little children to burn, or since he's allegedly watching us as I type this, he frickin DO something to show us that he's not the monster we think he is. I would, and so would you, that's because we are far more intelligent than what's just really a figment of people's imagination (Jesus being around today is just a figment of people's imagination....he's not real today, he doesn't answer prayers, and he never did....good ancient moral philosopher - perhaps, but "god" - oh hell no!)

 

You're welcome and your response is typically reasonable.

I think most modern enlightened theologians have come to see the bible as not inerrant, but as whole stew of thought, beliefs and attempts by ancient man to account for the world around him, all mixed together in an ecclesiastical blender.
At first in the Old Testament and then under the revolutionary teachings of Jesus (as a redefining definition of man's connection to God)

And one of the thorniest problems has always been the problem of the virtuous non Christian and heaven. Jesus said no man can get to the Father but through me but who knows what that really means? As I said, and I'm sure you agree, the problem is defining Jesus through a church that has evolved and morphed through the millennia without his actual input.

 

Yes, loving people and being kind to them does indeed seem out of character for someone who accepted slavery, never spoke out against the killing of gays (in Matt 5 he accepted the old laws), clearly doesn't give a damn if innocent Hindu children burn in this created "hell", disliked women, came "not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34), told people to leave their own children to join his cult (I think Charles Manson did that too, but if didn't, then Charles Manson is more moral than Jesus), said "If any man come to Me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE." (Luke 14:26), etc.

Jesus was a real piece of work.

 

If he was so allegedly all-knowing, then why can't we just take him at his word (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims fry in his after-death torture chambers) instead of trying to contort his words around to get something that sounds more pleasant to us? I'd expect that from the "greater person, actually god, to have ever lived", right?

Jesus hated most of humanity (70% of humanity are not Christians), and is fine with them getting worse treatment than a Jew at Auschwitz got (the Jew's life was "just" shortened by maybe 45 years, whereas there is no end to the horrors that JESUS will see the Jew gets - if I was a Jew I'd rather take my chances with Hitler than with Jesus.) But Jesus has the alleged ability to change all that in a heart-beat, come down during the Superbowl etc. and say "I screwed up, I was an immoral prick, now all non-Christians who are moral get into hell!" I'd do that, because I'm far far more moral than Jesus. I'd also stop evil, and he doesn't, because he doesn't care about his "children"....he called us "children".

- - - Updated - - -

Expect MORE from your super-heroes.

 

I think you are right about the theologians, but you limit it to modern enlightened ones. There are tons of them being churned out at Dallas Theological Seminary and Liberty University and so on that haven't evolved much past Darby.

 

You accept that there was a seeming change in the understanding of god from the OT to the NT, don't you?
Why can you not accept that the understanding of god for Christians continues to evolve?
It has never been static. You want to put it in a time capsule and freeze it and attack it as you perceive it, inerrant and unchanging, and I will poke that full of holes right along with you.
But with your attack mode at full gear constantly, you are alienating people that could be allies. You aren't going to change people from believers to attack dogs overnight, but you might find they will begin to modify their understanding if led there gently. You know, like MLK successfully achieved with civil rights.
You are your own worst enemy, and not because of your beliefs.
Who wants to become as hateful as this? If Christianity is hateful, as you assert, what is the point of adopting a new worldview with a different justification for hating?
What's the point?

 

1. Not what the Bible says. If you are going to accept the rest of the points you make are true then you must accept that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. You can't pick and choose.
2. Not true. The only thing drunk in those days was wine. No cups of tea. In fact he often went hungry.
3. The 'miracles' are recorded by the Disciples, not by Jesus.
4. He didn't travel with an armed band. If he had the Romans would have soon arrested them as rebels.
5. There's no proof of this except that some people gave to help him. We simply do not know what he did when he was not 'preaching'. Again we do not know whether hospitality was given freely, which was likely in Jewish rules of hospitality.
6. Jesus makes it clear he knows they will be challenged about the donkey.
7. If he had been self-centred he would not have allowed himself to suffer the agony of Crucifixion.
8. That's a matter of opinion and interpretation of scripture.
9. I assume you are referring to John 12 - 'the poor you will have with you always'. This ties in with Deuteronomy 15. It also shows that the disciples were more concerned with money, than the joy it gave the woman to do this thing. There were rules for supporting the poor which were often neglected by the people.
10. He never disowned his own parents, simply pointed out that we are all one family. Luke 2:51 Although, as an adult, he had no need to be obedient.
11. He didn't condone the embezzlement. The “manager” (niv) in this story was responsible for the orderly government of his master’s household. The Greek word for this responsible position is oikonomos, from which we get our word economics. The oikonomos looked after his master’s interests and saw to it that the many enterprises of the estate ran smoothly and harmoniously. That was the ideal, but the “manager” in Jesus’ story failed to measure up to the task. He had in fact embezzled from his master, who in the face of rumors about his servant suddenly asked for a reckoning. Heavy financial obligations were involved, the amounts totaling more than eight or nine years’ wages. In order to escape detection the steward conspired with his master’s debtors to reduce the amount they owed, in some cases cleverly suggesting that they make out their new bills in their own handwriting so that all appeared normal. Money had ensnared the oikonomos and driven him into a spiral of deceit that utterly betrayed the honor and trustworthiness that his position required. Money had tempted him into becoming a self-contradiction.

Why would Jesus praise such behavior? Joachim Jeremias suggests that this may have been a true story reported to Jesus who in turn repeated it to make a theological point. This brings us to the second line of interpretation concerning this parable. This second sense concerns us not so much with money as with what Jeremias calls the “challenge of the hour.”1 Here Jesus is saying, “It may be too late. Repent and change your heart by whatever means you can.” The people who reported the incident to Jesus had every right to be upset with the dishonest oikonomos. But in praising him Jesus wanted his listeners to see that they too were in imminent danger, but a danger far more serious than that facing the servant. “This man was [prudent] … i.e. he recognized the critical nature of the situation. He did not let things take their course, he acted, unscrupulously no doubt … but boldly, resolutely, and prudently, with the purpose of making a new life for himself.”2 It isn’t that Jesus praised the servant’s actions; he did not. But it is as if Jesus were saying, “For you, too, the challenge of the hour demands prudence, everything is at stake!”3http://thejourneynet.org/ForgivenessJustice2/JusticeMe/ScripturePassages/Luke16113/tabid/263/Default.aspx
12. Jesus came to the Jewish People, with a message for the Jewish people. I t was not intended for Gentiles.
13. This is simply not true. He wept over cities because the were rejecting him and he knew what was coming upon them for rejecting the Son of God. They had rejected the prophets of old... Oh I can't be bothered. Read Matthew 23:27-37.
14. The Jews believed in angels and spirits. And Jesus did not believe in cannibalism. This is Roman Catholic Doctrine. Jesus words were just symbolic.
If you had a cancer would you not have it removed to save your life. Same principle spiritually
15. He didn't. This was a 'prophetic vision' by 'John'. And can be construed to mean many things. There are as many interpretations of Revelation as you've had hot dinners.

Now. I don't believe the Bible is an inspired book. I believe there was a man - Jesus - probably a very wise teacher. I know he came to the Hebrew nation because he said he came in fulfilment of OT prophecy. And what is recorded fulfils this. This was for the Hebrews. I also know that a lot of what you have posted is out of context to the whole scenario of the Bible. Though I don't accept a lot of what has been written therein, I do try to understand it in context.

And I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

it's said when he comes again he will be much different ....

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 19:11-16&version=KJV

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

...

 

Not sure exactly what you mean but from the context it seems you are saying there are lots of theologians still being produced that see the bible as inerrant.
Well, that's how it goes. Progress is slow and Christianity inches it's way forward in it's understanding of things.
On the other hand, perhaps the bible is inerrant. I don't see it but I don't pretend to know it all.

 

Darbyism emerged in the US in the 1930s in traveling tent revivals. Now its the stuff of dispensationalism.

 

Me either.
Good post.

 

Darby spread his fiction in the 1800's.

 

This is the sort of hate filled spew that marks you as a zealot. An unpleasant zealot. An unpleasant zealot making unsupportable claims.

A) Not that many people see Jesus as a "monster" (quite the contrary). And, B) perhaps he has nothing to prove to you. You have an over active imagination that no one can overcome but yourself. And you don't seem to want to.

That's projection for you.

I can't say I'm as sure of things as you seem to be. But being sure and being right are not necessarily the same things.

 

The thing is that all of those items can be easily verified with passages from the Bible so it's not like I'm making stuff up. The one about Jesus praising the crook who stole from his employer is especially noteworthy.

 

I'm not religious but I have been brainwashed. IMO people should dump all of their favorite deities and focus on living better lives while giving everyone equal rights.

 

Only because you want to read it that way. I posted one interpretation.

You read the Bible without understanding the times, the differences between the laws governing the secular (non Hebrew for arguments sake) population and the religious laws of Moses governing the Hebrews. While the Hebrews were still subject to Roman laws they were allowed to follow their own religious laws. Evident in the Jewish condemnation of Jesus and the Roman reluctance to interfere.
The whole of the Gospels are written within a Hebrew context and unless you understand that context you will never understand the real Gospels. Many of Jesus parables are adaptations of OT 'images'. The vine, the good shepherd etc are all found in another form in the OT.

Regarding slavery. Jewish slaves were unique. Under Moses Laws they had extra rights to protect them from cruel behaviour by their masters which other nations slaves didn't.
There are many other rules regarding Jewish slaves.

Deuteronomy 16:
10 Then you are to celebrate the Festival of Weeks before the Lord your God with the voluntary offering that you will bring, in proportion to how he has blessed you.
11 You shall rejoice before him – you, your son, your daughter, your male and female slaves, the Levites in your villages, the resident foreigners, the orphans, and the widows among you – in the place where the Lord chooses to locate his name.
12 Furthermore, remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and so be careful to observe these statutes.
Slaves of other nations did not.

Slaves etc were included in many Jewish Festivals.

If you REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE I direct you to
http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

The fact that we don't agree with slavery has no relevance to the situation of the day. It was the norm.

 

Basically this is saying not to plan for tomorrow but put your faith in the Lord to provide. Quite easily some of the worst advice anyone could ever provide. Don't get me wrong, he says some good stuff too. But if he is the Son of God you would expect 100% good advice.

 

You suggest that we should relent in fighting the evils of religion. This shows a poor social conscience.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.


It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

- - - Updated - - -

apoState

[video=youtube;j4QXOgVfY9k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Regards
DL

 

What have I posted that makes you think I don't agree with all this?
I don't think you are paying attention.

 

Slaves were forced to worship their masters god.
They could be beaten to death provided they survived two days after the beating, as they were the masters "property".
Your understanding is a whitewash.

 

He neglected to fill out the proper paper work and didn't simply mock theists for merely proving Aesop right regarding democracy.

 

Only in today's hyper rarified anti religionist atmosphere would Jesus be considered not merely not what he claimed to be (the Son of God) but
a madman...or something worse! This is an unsupportable position put forth by zealots and it's this sort of thing that makes the anti religion movement sure to be confined to the outer limits of reason by it's own full embrace of the very thing (hate) that it professes to oppose the most.

I only watched about a third of the video, and it's a small point but a telling one that, in order to strain to make a case against Jesus his use of the Golden Rule was first of all critiqued as not being original. As if Jesus said, Hey everyone, here's something I just made up myself (I doubt Gandhi would have been criticized on the same grounds).
And more incredibly the Golden Rule itself was knocked because you would not want a sado-masochist doing unto you as he would have you do unto him (although you might, if your car was broken down on the side of the road and he drove by). At any rate this video will say anything, apparently, in order to slam Jesus.
And that includes slamming the notion of forgiveness, probably because Jesus promulgates it. All and all an absurdity.

 

No. We are only familiar with the JEWISH interpretation of why the baby died. Throughout the OT when something bad happens to someone or the Jewish nation as a whole the first thing they assume is that God is allowing them to be punished for some sin they have committed, when you and I can see that most of their trouble is probably natural. Why the baby died we have no idea. What we do know is that infant mortality was high.

What I like about anti Bible people is the way they take parts of a book they don't believe in and use events they don't believe in to criticise that book for events that, according to them, didn't happen.

Rather like criticising a 'fairy tale' for any moral it might be putting forward.

 

1. He's a powerful mental virus.
2. He's a solar allegory that people take as literal history.
3. The teachings surrounding that character are very anti-intellectual and anti-reason, though not every church or individual follower is that bad about it.

 

If we are on the same page then it must be your way of communicating that needs attention.

Here is a little kiss so let's make up.

Regards
DL