Is Jesus your personal beast of burden?

[Greatest I am]

Is Jesus your personal beast of burden?

Here are a few links where the authors think that vicarious redemption or blood atonement is immoral. I tend to agree with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp9XIh-BPio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS-3xTIdrFA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huorqCovZUE&feature=related

http://www.truegnosticchurch.org/topical_guide/blood-atonement.html

http://www.thenazareneway.com/vicarious_atonement.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

http://acimmessages.blogspot.com/



Believers should know that a hero is carried by his fans and not the other way around.

If getting into heaven can only be done by profiting from the murder of an innocent Jesus then heaven is an immoral place.

Do you see God pleased with everyone riding on the shoulders of an innocent victim to get into heaven?

I see God wanting to see all sinners carrying Jesus as a hero and not a beast of sinners burdens.

Who should bear the blame for sins? Jesus or the sinner?

Who would likely wants to see Jesus bent to the ground burdened by the responsibilities of sinners?

God or Satan?

Regards
DL

[Politesse]

While I'm not a fan of the theology of atonement (why would God need blood in the first place?) surely there is somewhat of a difference between an innocent victim and a willing sacrifice? If I am drowning and someone saves me, but then gets caught in the undertow themselves, is it wrong for me to be grateful to them and keep on living, because they died?

[Greatest I am]

While I'm not a fan of the theology of atonement (why would God need blood in the first place?) surely there is somewhat of a difference between an innocent victim and a willing sacrifice? If I am drowning and someone saves me, but then gets caught in the undertow themselves, is it wrong for me to be grateful to them and keep on living, because they died?

Not at all. We both would be.

The difference in the biblical scenario is that a God through you in the water, so to speak, and then His son to save you, and would not help him out of the water when He could.

A huge difference.

Regards
DL

[rog]

The difference in the biblical scenario is that a God through you in the water, so to speak, and then His son to save you, and would not help him out of the water when He could.



To carry the analogy further...

Why would god feel the need to save him from a moment of earthly pain when Jesus is immortal [and knows it] and the sole reason for his placement at the waterside was to be an object lesson in why swimming lessons are a good idea?

[Greatest I am]

The difference in the biblical scenario is that a God through you in the water, so to speak, and then His son to save you, and would not help him out of the water when He could.



To carry the analogy further...

Why would god feel the need to save him from a moment of earthly pain when Jesus is immortal [and knows it] and the sole reason for his placement at the waterside was to be an object lesson in why swimming lessons are a good idea?

LOL.
With you on this.

Regards
DL

[rog]

The difference in the biblical scenario is that a God through you in the water, so to speak, and then His son to save you, and would not help him out of the water when He could.



To carry the analogy further...

Why would god feel the need to save him from a moment of earthly pain when Jesus is immortal [and knows it] and the sole reason for his placement at the waterside was to be an object lesson in why swimming lessons are a good idea?

LOL.
With you on this.

Regards
DL

sorry to push it further, but, maybe because god thought: you can walk on water you daft bastard and if you still manage to drown, then maybe this is for the best.


:D

[Roo St. Gallus]

It's fiction, folks; a story. It's no more immoral than any other piece of fiction.

[Greatest I am]

The difference in the biblical scenario is that a God through you in the water, so to speak, and then His son to save you, and would not help him out of the water when He could.



To carry the analogy further...

Why would god feel the need to save him from a moment of earthly pain when Jesus is immortal [and knows it] and the sole reason for his placement at the waterside was to be an object lesson in why swimming lessons are a good idea?

LOL.
With you on this.

Regards
DL

sorry to push it further, but, maybe because god thought: you can walk on water you daft bastard and if you still manage to drown, then maybe this is for the best.


:D

Yes. All being sons of God and knowing that we have a genocidal Father, it is in our best interest to all learn how to swim for at least 40 days and nights.


I keep a sharp eye for some dude building a big boat as well. I will make sure we are buddies. :evil: has to be represented after the next eh, cleansing.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

It's fiction, folks; a story. It's no more immoral than any other piece of fiction.

It is myth for sure but all fairy tales have moral themes.
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
That is a believer trait and you should be above such.
The Bible has been corrupted for sure but some of it's morality can be dithered out. Remember that it is primarily a remake of a book of Egyptian wisdom.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84m5k_2007doc-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

Regards
DL

[Roo St. Gallus]

Well, I don't know where you get that Egyptian crap, but I have no idea why you think I should privilege one particular outlook...that of the Judeo-Christians. I certainly don't.

It's fiction. Whether it has morality tales entangled within and between all the immorality tales is unimportant. It is still a confusing bunch of crappy tales. The mythos is perverted in many places, as well. In my estimation, at least.

[Greatest I am]

Well, I don't know where you get that Egyptian crap, but I have no idea why you think I should privilege one particular outlook...that of the Judeo-Christians. I certainly don't.

It's fiction. Whether it has morality tales entangled within and between all the immorality tales is unimportant. It is still a confusing bunch of crappy tales. The mythos is perverted in many places, as well. In my estimation, at least.

If you use the link provided it will show you were the --crap--came from originally and how it was used.
If you still think it crap after educating yourself a bit then you be fool.

The Bible was a book of wisdom before Constantine changed it to a book for social manipulation and control.
Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. All ancient books of wisdom are just that.

Regards
DL

[Aupmanyav]

If I am drowning and someone saves me, but then gets caught in the undertow themselves, is it wrong for me to be grateful to them and keep on living, because they died?Who is or was drowning?

[Roo St. Gallus]

Well, I don't know where you get that Egyptian crap, but I have no idea why you think I should privilege one particular outlook...that of the Judeo-Christians. I certainly don't.

It's fiction. Whether it has morality tales entangled within and between all the immorality tales is unimportant. It is still a confusing bunch of crappy tales. The mythos is perverted in many places, as well. In my estimation, at least.

If you use the link provided it will show you were the --crap--came from originally and how it was used.
If you still think it crap after educating yourself a bit then you be fool.

The Bible was a book of wisdom before Constantine changed it to a book for social manipulation and control.
Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. All ancient books of wisdom are just that.

Regards
DL

Excuse me...but this:

Remember that it is primarily a remake of a book of Egyptian wisdom.

Is an extravagent claim.

The Hebraic belief system is a syncretic mash of any number of traditions picked up from the peoples of Canaan, the Mesopotamian Valley, Egypt and Persia. Christianity is a late schism that incorporates much of the earlier mash. The creation mythos is probably closer to Sumer, Ur and Akkad than it is Egypt. Does 'Gilgamesh' ring any bells? Second Temple Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism, thanks to the sponsorship of Cyrus and his heirs...It is during this period which 'monotheism' actually takes hold (when in reality, it's a duotheism), as prior to that, it still had a lot of the aspects of the Ugaritic theology.

It's my understanding that primary influences upon the development of Judiasm come from the Ugaritic, rather than the Egyptian. The Hebrew homelands in Canaan were at the margins of several empires over long stretches of time. The influences came from all directions, but the language and the writing styles (textual, not iconic) come from the east and north, not the south and west, thus I think it likely that these influences would be more likely to survive into our day.

Some Egyptian influence?...Yeah, probably. "Primarily a remake of Egyptian wisdom"? That's an over the top, extravagant claim.

[Greatest I am]

Well, I don't know where you get that Egyptian crap, but I have no idea why you think I should privilege one particular outlook...that of the Judeo-Christians. I certainly don't.

It's fiction. Whether it has morality tales entangled within and between all the immorality tales is unimportant. It is still a confusing bunch of crappy tales. The mythos is perverted in many places, as well. In my estimation, at least.

If you use the link provided it will show you were the --crap--came from originally and how it was used.
If you still think it crap after educating yourself a bit then you be fool.

The Bible was a book of wisdom before Constantine changed it to a book for social manipulation and control.
Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. All ancient books of wisdom are just that.

Regards
DL

Excuse me...but this:

Remember that it is primarily a remake of a book of Egyptian wisdom.

Is an extravagent claim.

The Hebraic belief system is a syncretic mash of any number of traditions picked up from the peoples of Canaan, the Mesopotamian Valley, Egypt and Persia. Christianity is a late schism that incorporates much of the earlier mash. The creation mythos is probably closer to Sumer, Ur and Akkad than it is Egypt. Does 'Gilgamesh' ring any bells? Second Temple Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism, thanks to the sponsorship of Cyrus and his heirs...It is during this period which 'monotheism' actually takes hold (when in reality, it's a duotheism), as prior to that, it still had a lot of the aspects of the Ugaritic theology.

It's my understanding that primary influences upon the development of Judiasm come from the Ugaritic, rather than the Egyptian. The Hebrew homelands in Canaan were at the margins of several empires over long stretches of time. The influences came from all directions, but the language and the writing styles (textual, not iconic) come from the east and north, not the south and west, thus I think it likely that these influences would be more likely to survive into our day.

Some Egyptian influence?...Yeah, probably. "Primarily a remake of Egyptian wisdom"? That's an over the top, extravagant claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0&feature=related

This is a visual of the other link I gave above and they point to 10,000 BCE.
I am not sure of the timing of your references but will admit that we may never know who or what if anyone or anything influence the Egyptians. I do believe that later religions in that area picked up on it.

The main point is that religion is all myth.

Regards
DL

[Roo St. Gallus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0&feature=related

This is a visual of the other link I gave above and they point to 10,000 BCE.
I am not sure of the timing of your references but will admit that we may never know who or what if anyone or anything influence the Egyptians. I do believe that later religions in that area picked up on it.

The main point is that religion is all myth.

Regards
DL


I can't view these at this point, but I must respond.

10,000 BCE?

"They" point to that date? Based upon what? You are not using Rudolf Steiner or JZ Knight as a source, are you? How could anybody in this day and age make any comparisons of thought and belief of Egypt, or the Nile Valley region at 10,000 BCE? There are no written documents of any kind from that era, as writing doesn't really emerge until the Bronze Age...at or around 3,000 BCE.

Check out this wike site on the development of writing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing) and note the dates.

I would suggest that if somebody is telling you that the primary wisdom of the Egyptians (subsequently adopted by the Hebrews?) goes back to 10,000 BCE, and you are accepting that dating, then you are credulously swallowing a load of bullshit.

We have no way of determining what anyone at the time of 10,000 BCE believed about anything. It is only with later documentation...itself greatly disputed as to interpretation...that we can get some inkling of anything, much less the nebulous ideology surrounding superstitious mythos and "wisdom".

[Greatest I am]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0&feature=related

This is a visual of the other link I gave above and they point to 10,000 BCE.
I am not sure of the timing of your references but will admit that we may never know who or what if anyone or anything influence the Egyptians. I do believe that later religions in that area picked up on it.

The main point is that religion is all myth.

Regards
DL


I can't view these at this point, but I must respond.

10,000 BCE?

"They" point to that date? Based upon what? You are not using Rudolf Steiner or JZ Knight as a source, are you? How could anybody in this day and age make any comparisons of thought and belief of Egypt, or the Nile Valley region at 10,000 BCE? There are no written documents of any kind from that era, as writing doesn't really emerge until the Bronze Age...at or around 3,000 BCE.

Check out this wike site on the development of writing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing) and note the dates.

I would suggest that if somebody is telling you that the primary wisdom of the Egyptians (subsequently adopted by the Hebrews?) goes back to 10,000 BCE, and you are accepting that dating, then you are credulously swallowing a load of bullshit.

We have no way of determining what anyone at the time of 10,000 BCE believed about anything. It is only with later documentation...itself greatly disputed as to interpretation...that we can get some inkling of anything, much less the nebulous ideology surrounding superstitious mythos and "wisdom".

This information was not taken from written records but from hieroglyths as stated in the first link I provided. If you dispute the timing, you would have to take it up with the author of the book. I do not really care as I have said, it is the fact that it is all myth that is the important part.

Regards
DL

[Roo St. Gallus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0&feature=related

This is a visual of the other link I gave above and they point to 10,000 BCE.
I am not sure of the timing of your references but will admit that we may never know who or what if anyone or anything influence the Egyptians. I do believe that later religions in that area picked up on it.

The main point is that religion is all myth.

Regards
DL


I can't view these at this point, but I must respond.

10,000 BCE?

"They" point to that date? Based upon what? You are not using Rudolf Steiner or JZ Knight as a source, are you? How could anybody in this day and age make any comparisons of thought and belief of Egypt, or the Nile Valley region at 10,000 BCE? There are no written documents of any kind from that era, as writing doesn't really emerge until the Bronze Age...at or around 3,000 BCE.

Check out this wike site on the development of writing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing) and note the dates.

I would suggest that if somebody is telling you that the primary wisdom of the Egyptians (subsequently adopted by the Hebrews?) goes back to 10,000 BCE, and you are accepting that dating, then you are credulously swallowing a load of bullshit.

We have no way of determining what anyone at the time of 10,000 BCE believed about anything. It is only with later documentation...itself greatly disputed as to interpretation...that we can get some inkling of anything, much less the nebulous ideology surrounding superstitious mythos and "wisdom".

This information was not taken from written records but from hieroglyths as stated in the first link I provided. If you dispute the timing, you would have to take it up with the author of the book. I do not really care as I have said, it is the fact that it is all myth that is the important part.

Regards
DL

And heiroglyphs are a writing system; just iconic rather than textual.

The earliest known date from the early 4th millenium, not the 10th.

If your source is pushing 10,000 BCE as a date for their sources, then all sorts of alarms should be going off regarding the reliability of the rest of the claims attached to this one.

[Greatest I am]

[
And heiroglyphs are a writing system; just iconic rather than textual.

The earliest known date from the early 4th millenium, not the 10th.

If your source is pushing 10,000 BCE as a date for their sources, then all sorts of alarms should be going off regarding the reliability of the rest of the claims attached to this one.

How about 15,000.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/27530265.html

Regards
DL

[Roo St. Gallus]

So...now rock and cave art pieces are "heiroglyphics"?

Lascaux antedates those by at least 2,000 years. Are you sure that they didn't provide the book of wisdom from the ancient French which the Egyptians just copied?

[Roo St. Gallus]

LOL.

Okay...I viewed the ten minute video you suggested.

(For everybody else...you don't need the sound, it's melodramatic music, no more. It can be watched without sound. There is no verbal narrative.)

Imagery. Yeah...lots of imagery. Imagery which is repeated. Or similar. Yeah...that's definitive. (not) Hey...I'll admit to a fair amount of diffusion of ideas...including imagery....they were powerful neighbors of the Canaanites for a long time, and even colonized Canaan briefly. But, come on, this kind of associative imagery stretches credulity.

"Busted" is funny. Ludicrious, I'd say. Using a cheesy 19th century American print of Jesus looking up at a light ray is a wholly damning piece of evidence that christianity is surely based upon Egyptian thought.

Yeah...riiiight.

Followed immediately by the mitre allusion...that was good, too.

I think the video is the work of Egyptocentric history nerds. Everything was invented by the Egyptians!!! The Egyptians run the Illuminati!!! That's why that silly eye over the pyramid is on the back of a US one dollar bill!!!! The American government was invented by the Egyptians!!!!

Sorry. They're interesting and provocative similarities in imagery, but they are not proof that christianity is "primarily a remake of a book of Egyptian wisdom." I think they are more interesting in that the imagery was lifted and added to the Jesus stories in a syncretic process. Some of the stories, no doubt, were, too. The interpretations which go with the imagery need not be the same. The stories can change when they diffuse, y'know. I suspect that the meaning the sun disc in the images had to the ancient Egyptians is not the same that modern christians ascribe to it....or even a medieval religious painters who popularized in our culture.

[Aupmanyav]

We have no way of determining what anyone at the time of 10,000 BCE believed about anything. It is only with later documentation...itself greatly disputed as to interpretation...that we can get some inkling of anything, much less the nebulous ideology surrounding superstitious mythos and "wisdom".It is possible to look that far back - with the help of myths. The zoroastrian Avesta mentions a deluge by snow. Was it the ice-age? The Vedas mention continuous sun-light for seven and a half months, a dawn extending to a month, a longer night of two months or more, and priests who concluded their sacrificial year in nine or ten months. Was the original homeland of Aryans in the Arctic Circle? It mentioned rising of the sun in the asterism of Castor and Pollux (Return of the light) on the day of vernal equinox. That is 6,000 BC. Of course, these mentions have to be corroborated with other evidence. But these give the pointers. Writing is not the only way to record happenings.

[Greatest I am]

We have no way of determining what anyone at the time of 10,000 BCE believed about anything. It is only with later documentation...itself greatly disputed as to interpretation...that we can get some inkling of anything, much less the nebulous ideology surrounding superstitious mythos and "wisdom".It is possible to look that far back - with the help of myths. The zoroastrian Avesta mentions a deluge by snow. Was it the ice-age? The Vedas mention continuous sun-light for seven and a half months, a dawn extending to a month, a longer night of two months or more, and priests who concluded their sacrificial year in nine or ten months. Was the original homeland of Aryans in the Arctic Circle? It mentioned rising of the sun in the asterism of Castor and Pollux (Return of the light) on the day of vernal equinox. That is 6,000 BC. Of course, these mentions have to be corroborated with other evidence. But these give the pointers. Writing is not the only way to record happenings.

True. Especially when the writings are paid for by Constantine, a tyrant more interested in solidifying his position with a book that is quite good at social manipulation and control and promotes following blindly like sheep instead of daring to question anything.

He liked the idea of the free will that God offered. Do it my way or burn forever. I call that a threat.

Regards
DL

[Rie]

It's sort of hypnotic the way GIA draws a picture and then elaborates on it and... I can only speak for myself... once having accepted GIA's world, we pile in and try to argue a point that never did have any logic anyway.
It's getting so that GIA is this forum's beast of burden anyway.

[Greatest I am]

It's sort of hypnotic the way GIA draws a picture and then elaborates on it and... I can only speak for myself... once having accepted GIA's world, we pile in and try to argue a point that never did have any logic anyway.
It's getting so that GIA is this forum's beast of burden anyway.

We all have a cross to bear.

Regards
DL

[rcscwc]

While I'm not a fan of the theology of atonement (why would God need blood in the first place?) surely there is somewhat of a difference between an innocent victim and a willing sacrifice? If I am drowning and someone saves me, but then gets caught in the undertow themselves, is it wrong for me to be grateful to them and keep on living, because they died?
Per se not wrong. But>>

If that Mr. X does know he is going to be caught whether you are saved or not, then why would he jump at all? If he does then, he deserves Darwin prize.

Fact is he was under an illusion that Yhwh would whisk him away. It did not happen and he cried: Why have you forsaken me?

He felt betrayed, he felt abandoned. How will he save me?

[Khold Inferno]

It's fiction, folks; a story. It's no more immoral than any other piece of fiction.

It is myth for sure but all fairy tales have moral themes.
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
That is a believer trait and you should be above such.
The Bible has been corrupted for sure but some of it's morality can be dithered out. Remember that it is primarily a remake of a book of Egyptian wisdom.

Regards
DL

You should read The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson. It's basically the Bible with all of the divinity taken out of it. All it contains is the moral themes of the stories.
From what I hear, it is quite an amazing book for those who cannot dig up the themes from the stories themselves.

[Greatest I am]

It's fiction, folks; a story. It's no more immoral than any other piece of fiction.

It is myth for sure but all fairy tales have moral themes.
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
That is a believer trait and you should be above such.
The Bible has been corrupted for sure but some of it's morality can be dithered out. Remember that it is primarily a remake of a book of Egyptian wisdom.

Regards
DL

You should read The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson. It's basically the Bible with all of the divinity taken out of it. All it contains is the moral themes of the stories.
From what I hear, it is quite an amazing book for those who cannot dig up the themes from the stories themselves.

All books of wisdom have a bit.
I have yet to read any interpretation that says that it is wrong to try to profit from the death of an innocent man. I think any writer would ignore such an issue because it is just too stupid to contemplate that men would do such while ignoring the fact that the Bible, or at least Christian tradition, tells us to and the followers have taken up that stupid attitude as moral.

Jefferson was either a Deist or a Gnostic. Both are superior thinkers as compared to Christians.

Regards
DL