• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An Easy Jesus for Practical Atheists

Triumph

FREEDOM OF SPEECH
OK, then I see that Jesus makes no difference to you aside from making lengthy excuses as to why you choose not to obey him. "Depart from me--I never knew you!"
God commanded procreate, have children.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, "
Note, God did not say do not have children because that pleases me more than having children.
Multiplying humans and being fruitful is having sex in marriage to replenish the Earth with children, creating more humans to establish future generations.
God did not create man and woman to not have sex thus become extinct by being celibate without children.
The true Apostles said we ought to be obeying God not men. (like the pharisee Paul that lied claiming it was being closer to God to not have children) Peter was a married man.
How is it being closer to God by disobeying his command in Genesis to replenish the Earth with children. Disobedience is rejected by God not embraced by God.
There are 2 false Apostles in the Bible, Judas and Paul found in Judas's house. Neither are found in the house of God.
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Believe what you want about your motives... I continue to perceive what I have been perceiving. And with this latest, it is just more of your trying to wriggle out from under my accusation.

Think of it this way - please ask yourself the question: "How do religious people argue?" What is it, specifically, that you believe that "religious people" display in their argumentation that makes it uniquely "religious?" And then ask yourself what you think of those methods of argumentation that you are calling "religious." Do you like them? Are they to be lauded as "some of the best?" If not, and you indeed, believe them to be in poor taste (precisely what I suspect - and for very good reason, based on all evidence presented by yourself in this very thread via your posts) then you were specifically using the terminology to disparage my methods of argumentation. Weaponizing the term "religious" in other words.

Keep wriggling. It suits you. Honestly... it does. Gives you straight away. And I like when things are expedient like that.
What you think you get.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Most people that call themselves Christians are not. The path Jesus walks is narrow and few find it.
All men walk upon the exact same earths body.

Why lie?

Answer is when man began to self sacrifice by falling gases burning losing water he was sacrificing melting the saviour ice.

Sacrificed all bodies everywhere that he pre taught had been saved as life on Gods earth.

He began to by thinking upon inflected psyche word use know and realise that life depended on a fused earth God.

So he formed parables of non conditional phrases that depicted non reality as man continued to walk upon the exact same God body always.

He was informed like I was of visionary human brothers sisters animals being life sacrificed.

Why he wrote the way he did was rational. Only understood by a true spiritual mind.

Earth natural status is always natural first and should not have been changed by science.

As it wasn't science it was gods natural position he did not talk science otherwise he would be lying about God earths states.

Why you don't believe in him you aren't sacrificed enough yet.
 

Triumph

FREEDOM OF SPEECH
All men walk upon the exact same earths body.

Why lie?

Answer is when man began to self sacrifice by falling gases burning losing water he was sacrificing melting the saviour ice.

Sacrificed all bodies everywhere that he pre taught had been saved as life on Gods earth.

He began to by thinking upon inflected psyche word use know and realise that life depended on a fused earth God.

So he formed parables of non conditional phrases that depicted non reality as man continued to walk upon the exact same God body always.

He was informed like I was of visionary human brothers sisters animals being life sacrificed.

Why he wrote the way he did was rational. Only understood by a true spiritual mind.

Earth natural status is always natural first and should not have been changed by science.

As it wasn't science it was gods natural position he did not talk science otherwise he would be lying about God earths states.

Why you don't believe in him you aren't sacrificed enough yet.
An expression not expressible as a ratio of two integers, and having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal.
 

Jagella

Member
Most people that call themselves Christians are not.

If by "Christian" you mean a person who obeys the Gospel's injunctions, then yes, Christians are rare birds. One possible example of a person who did obey Jesus is Saint Francis of Assisi. He was celibate and lived in abject poverty devoting his entire life to his Christian faith.

Of course, not all Christians would define Christianity the way Saint Francis apparently did. I suppose for them "Christian" is some mold that they fit into. So however they live, it is in obedience to Christ as they see it. The toughest doctrines Jesus preached could always be interpreted in some way as to make them optional.

The path Jesus walks is narrow and few find it.

If anybody does find it, then they won't keep it! Please understand that those who disobey Christ are prudent as far as I'm concerned. It would be foolish indeed if not dangerous to do everything Christ said to do.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
In life I observe other human behaviour.

If you say to a scientist imagine life without temple machines pyramids. Life without your human controlled human designed technology.

You'd be natural as a human and not being life sacrificed.

What artificial status was as introduced and controlled by the mind of men thinking....his technology.

Not natural.

So man taught I name names to teach. What I state is the law. As I control family behaviour choices by law.

The law of earth is a natural planet. It is rock stone. It is fused. Once upon a time ago. Now it's unsealed by science. It's been unsealed by origin science technology for a very long time.

Space the law of pressure owned balances first.

If a man says I will convert a planets mass he challenges first law space pressure and says he'll overcome it.

For earth it means non presence equals answer. A hot black radiating hole where earth once was. Star particles swirling in gases never owning held form again. Earth as God.

Earth is a planet. Earth is not a star.

As space is one condition empty holding radiating masses cooling or cooled. The status is held cooling or was cooled is historic.

As was cooled means what isn't cooled won't cool. It exists just cooling. As just cooling is a law in science also.

So our brother taught us a human story that if you unseal planet God body it's flesh status changes life body water Microbe cooled as his biology flesh got changed. Using water microbiology.

Not should be changed or needed to be changed...was changed.

Is a pretty basic human observed life got sacrificed when it should not have been changed and survived left suffering after.

As we didn't own a miracle a non changed human biology in sciences practice.

Yet science tried to preach it did lying coercing the whole time. As science wrote the bible.

If Jesus was a one of attack that ended. Life survived changed afterwards.

Imagine if a lying scientist tried to keep life in attack constant. Thinking he could over rule space law itself.

Lucky natural space exists as law otherwise life on earth wouldn't was the teaching holy cosmic womb.

The term life on earth human sacrificed by science choice.

When a human taught the presence alien manifestation eats us...water owning natural balanced microbioloy gets destroyed eaten.

Was the human life warning.

We know food if life is water oxygenated support.

Science thought about water as a created space pressure not existing in thesis as it's natural mass which is death of everything on earth.

Seeing water saved earths position of stone rock as the substance his machines are built from.

Pretty basic advice if your mind is so consumed by technology.

Why a Bible was written. Read it often enough suddenly the real information is realised in a brain mind that lost language lost memories was interferred with by AI.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The advice man never listens as baby son adult man to father one of only first memory.

As we are all sperm ovary consciousness first.

Whilst he theoried he was told if you pretend earth can disappear by non water presence as bonded hydrogen oxygenated twice then origin stone rock sealing by water flood will keep earths mass opened.

As sun to star to earth masses origin conversion. When immaculate non lit heavens only existed. When light first began as ignited gas. To earth mass by gas fall and star particles unsealed earth.

Flooded earth water sealed and applied pressure so earth didn't explode. Unlike other planets.

Why some planets that expanded gained lots of moons as water cooling.

Totally unsealed was the gain first light in mind notification. When no life lived on earth was earth attacked.

Told the advice direct.

He tried to make a science thesis out of his own man's human warning.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
But I know my motives--why would I believe anything about them?



I'm very slippery, but I'm evidently not slippery enough to evade your keen perception. You've exposed my nefarious motives for all to see.



But Vest, I've been pointing out from the OP that there really isn't much that is uniquely religious about the behavior of religious people. Aside from prayer and worship, the religious act much like the nonreligious.



I'm not sure if I like or dislike the arguments of the religious, but I often disagree with those arguments. It's important to understand that whether we like or dislike arguments is irrelevant to their logical validity and their truth.



Actually, I've been using sound logic to falsify your arguments. And like I've pointed out, I don't have a hissy fit over the arguments of my ideological opponents. I keep a cool head and demonstrate logically and factually why those arguments are wrong if they are wrong.



Your approach to this discussion is really strange. What I've gotten so far is that you're upset thinking that I'm insulting you by allegedly telling you that you are religious even while you don't think it's normally an insult to be called religious! You take it as an insult from me in particular because you're convinced that I intend it to be an insult.
Eh - I remain convinced that you are simply lying here. You specifically used the word "religious" to describe my posts and responses, and you did so as some form of reprimand or in an attempt to get me to change up or rethink my position or my way of going about responding to you. That's literally all I can see. If that is my problem and my problem alone, so be it. I literally don't care if I am wrong on this score, because it affects virtually nothing at all in my life and livelihood - nor yours! But, if I am right... then you can go on to think about that... and that is really all I care about, in the end. Not the fact that you called me "religious" or any such drivel that came from your mind.
 

Triumph

FREEDOM OF SPEECH
If by "Christian" you mean a person who obeys the Gospel's injunctions, then yes, Christians are rare birds. One possible example of a person who did obey Jesus is Saint Francis of Assisi. He was celibate and lived in abject poverty devoting his entire life to his Christian faith.

Of course, not all Christians would define Christianity the way Saint Francis apparently did. I suppose for them "Christian" is some mold that they fit into. So however they live, it is in obedience to Christ as they see it. The toughest doctrines Jesus preached could always be interpreted in some way as to make them optional.



If anybody does find it, then they won't keep it! Please understand that those who disobey Christ are prudent as far as I'm concerned. It would be foolish indeed if not dangerous to do everything Christ said to do.
Everything Jesus taught is in parable. Symbolism is not literal. Jesus is not saying become a cannibal and eat him. He explained his flesh = bread = Doctrine. To eat his flesh is to absorb his doctrine and understand it. Same with his blood. Blood = Wine = Doctrine. Drink his doctrine because the Words of God will sustain and save you. To eat and drink is to listen and learn the words Jesus teaches. It is sad people want to take what is not literal as literal turning what is important into a repulsive fairytale.
Mark 4:34
But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
 

Jagella

Member
Everything Jesus taught is in parable. Symbolism is not literal. Jesus is not saying become a cannibal and eat him. He explained his flesh = bread = Doctrine. To eat his flesh is to absorb his doctrine and understand it. Same with his blood. Blood = Wine = Doctrine. Drink his doctrine because the Words of God will sustain and save you. To eat and drink is to listen and learn the words Jesus teaches. It is sad people want to take what is not literal as literal turning what is important into a repulsive fairytale.
Mark 4:34
But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."
I wouldn't say that everything Jesus taught was meant to be mere "parable" (I think you mean metaphor). While the examples you post above are obvious metaphors, much of what Jesus is quoted as saying cannot meaningfully be interpreted as metaphor. Was his "Heavenly Father" only a metaphor, for instance? Was his command to love one's enemies only symbolism of some sort?

In any case, it appears to me that many people take interpreting scripture metaphorically way too far especially if passages taken literally will result in the Bible saying something that is false. Many Biblical apologists take that tact "saving" the Bible by explaining away Bible errors as metaphors!

So if you disagree, then please explain all my mistaken statements (if there are any) as mere figurative language on my part!
 

Jagella

Member
Eh - I remain convinced that you are simply lying here. You specifically used the word "religious" to describe my posts and responses, and you did so as some form of reprimand or in an attempt to get me to change up or rethink my position or my way of going about responding to you. That's literally all I can see. If that is my problem and my problem alone, so be it. I literally don't care if I am wrong on this score, because it affects virtually nothing at all in my life and livelihood - nor yours! But, if I am right... then you can go on to think about that... and that is really all I care about, in the end. Not the fact that you called me "religious" or any such drivel that came from your mind.
I'm missing your point. What exactly is the point of your posting that you're convinced that I'm lying? It appears important to you that you prove that I am lying.

Anyway, as far as my being accused of attempting to get you to rethink your position, I admit my guilt! You are seeing correctly. I've been making the case since the OP that the religious and the nonreligious act much alike, and your responses are robust evidence that I am right in that regard.

As for the effect this issue has on our lifestyles, I think that understanding the behavior of the religious compared to the nonreligious has a very relevant and practical consequence for most people. Such knowledge can let a person know what to expect if she either converts to a religion or if she leaves a religion. She can have a good idea about how she will live, who her friends might be, who she could end up marrying, and many other things that will affect her life. For example, if she's a nun and leaves the Catholic Church, how will her relationship to men change? As I hope you can see, an examination of the impact religion has on people and debating the differences in behavior brought on by religious beliefs is not a mere exercise in abstract philosophy but is of enormous practical importance.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I'm missing your point. What exactly is the point of your posting that you're convinced that I'm lying? It appears important to you that you prove that I am lying.
Only you know whether or not you are lying. And yes... of import to me is calling you out for such, and letting you, yourself know the truth, even if no others do because of any façade you are keen on employing. If you think I care about much more, you're fooling yourself. I alluded to as much in previous posts, where I told you, explicitly, that it isn't me who finds the word "religious" insulting... it is the context that gives at least the appearance that it is expected to be an insult. I'm willing to take on the mantle "religious" - as I have already stated. And it is then YOU who must explain what you feel that means about my position. And if the connotations you were wanting to employ be negative... well then... hahaha... red are the hands that are caught I'm afraid.

Anyway, as far as my being accused of attempting to get you to rethink your position, I admit my guilt! You are seeing correctly. I've been making the case since the OP that the religious and the nonreligious act much alike, and your responses are robust evidence that I am right in that regard.
Then there you go! Employing the word "religious" was specifically used as a tactic to try and dissuade me from pursuing some course I was along that you didn't approve of. Which necessarily means that you must have expected me to find the term "religious" as a "bad" thing... an insult in other words. You sure do like to dance, though you aren't very good at it.

As for the effect this issue has on our lifestyles, I think that understanding the behavior of the religious compared to the nonreligious has a very relevant and practical consequence for most people. Such knowledge can let a person know what to expect if she either converts to a religion or if she leaves a religion. She can have a good idea about how she will live, who her friends might be, who she could end up marrying, and many other things that will affect her life. For example, if she's a nun and leaves the Catholic Church, how will her relationship to men change? As I hope you can see, an examination of the impact religion has on people and debating the differences in behavior brought on by religious beliefs is not a mere exercise in abstract philosophy but is of enormous practical importance.
Read it twice... and I can't even fathom what this paragraph is here for.
 

Triumph

FREEDOM OF SPEECH
I wouldn't say that everything Jesus taught was meant to be mere "parable" (I think you mean metaphor). While the examples you post above are obvious metaphors, much of what Jesus is quoted as saying cannot meaningfully be interpreted as metaphor. Was his "Heavenly Father" only a metaphor, for instance? Was his command to love one's enemies only symbolism of some sort?

In any case, it appears to me that many people take interpreting scripture metaphorically way too far especially if passages taken literally will result in the Bible saying something that is false. Many Biblical apologists take that tact "saving" the Bible by explaining away Bible errors as metaphors!

So if you disagree, then please explain all my mistaken statements (if there are any) as mere figurative language on my part!

The Bible scripture has the word parable in it 32 times in the new testament and 17 times in the old testament. Symbolism is used profusely throughout the old and new testament even when unexplained like, "now this is going to be a parable or this is going to be a metaphor" so pay attention so you can understand it. Scriptures include metaphors, allegory and personification. A nation is called a tree also called a mountain so those are metaphors, but Lucifer is perceived as a name for an entity of human characteristics when it actually is a personification of an object controlled by humans in war.
A "talking donkey" is the personification of an abused human that warns the abuser of danger. The Jesus lessons were parables. But he also used a large amount of symbolism including metaphors when teaching; symbolic meaning attributed to natural objects or facts. The topic being what Jesus taught was largely symbolic not literal but many events that happen are literal especially for future events but explained in symbolic ways as Jesus is a prophet telling us future events. The Apostles had to be taught exactly what was the meaning of his parables including his use of metaphors because they were difficult to understand. Few would understand that Bread means both flesh and doctrine or a rod of iron represents a rifle, army. The "right" hand is the hand that controls the military. The inner court is where the Commander in Chief resides and the outer court is the military.

People are to know a woman was not made from a rib, a serpent can not talk and by the way, Eve ate that fruit first but was not a goddess afterward. The Abrahamic religion that grew out of that fairytale of "forbidden fruit' that can make a human a God, made a throne for a man allowed to call himself the Lord, but no throne for a woman. BOTH male and female ate the fruit.
Adam had the greater "sin" because he had the opportunity to bend the knee to his Lord God and ask for forgiveness of Eve because she was naive not understanding that lies had entered her existence. Adam refused to lower his ego or submit to the judgement of God by his eating the fruit. If he loved Eve he would have prayed to God to help her with mercy and forgiveness but Adam only cared about himself, not Eve. Adam claims to know exactly what he is doing so Adam wants to become a God by eating the fruit to become a Lord never again having to obey a deity. That Lord becomes the voice of his invented deity so he is their God.
Eve ate because she was ignorant, and she even wanted to share the power she thought she would receive, with Adam so he also could become a God not under the control of anything so attaining his freedom. But Adam now cast out into the world, wanting to be the Lord, desired Eve to be subservient and not equal to Adam in any way.
Adam and Eve are not the first humans on Earth, they represent the first Hebrew/Jews, a race of people. This race of people would kill people for not believing in their talking snake fiction that exalted Hebrew/Jews as superior to other people with the self given right to kill people for not serving them. Their religion is one of horror and their invented Lord God desires to see children burned alive and infants dashed against rocks and the Hebrew/Jews made certain that happened to exalt themselves.
Jesus was sent to stop their reign of terror so they demanded he die even though Jesus was innocent. Jews manipulated justice with threats and hatred to make the death of Jesus happen.
 

Jagella

Member
Only you know whether or not you are lying. And yes... of import to me is calling you out for such, and letting you, yourself know the truth, even if no others do because of any façade you are keen on employing.

The religious tend to display paranoia fearing that they are being deceived by unbelievers.

If you think I care about much more, you're fooling yourself. I alluded to as much in previous posts, where I told you, explicitly, that it isn't me who finds the word "religious" insulting... it is the context that gives at least the appearance that it is expected to be an insult. I'm willing to take on the mantle "religious" - as I have already stated.

The religious also tend to repeat themselves even after being corrected.

And it is then YOU who must explain what you feel that means about my position. And if the connotations you were wanting to employ be negative... well then... hahaha... red are the hands that are caught I'm afraid.

The religious seek to find guilty all those they fear are deceiving their fellow believers. This phenomenon drove the Inquisition as well as secular movements like Stalinism.

Then there you go! Employing the word "religious" was specifically used as a tactic to try and dissuade me from pursuing some course I was along that you didn't approve of. Which necessarily means that you must have expected me to find the term "religious" as a "bad" thing... an insult in other words. You sure do like to dance, though you aren't very good at it.

Yes. I was arguing to demonstrate that my position on the issue of the similarity between the behavior of the religious and the nonreligious is correct. I sought to correct you by demonstrating that you are wrong. You appear to take correction as an insult which is a common reaction among the religious.

Read it twice... and I can't even fathom what this paragraph is here for.

You need to read your own post twice. Back on post # 91 you said:

I literally don't care if I am wrong on this score, because it affects virtually nothing at all in my life and livelihood - nor yours!

I was responding to this claim demonstrating that the issue of behavior of the religious versus the nonreligious does affect our lives.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
The religious tend to display paranoia fearing that they are being deceived by unbelievers.
And this is a negative attribute from your perspective you would say, yes?

The religious also tend to repeat themselves even after being corrected.
And this is a negative attribute from your perspective you would say, yes?


The religious seek to find guilty all those they fear are deceiving their fellow believers. This phenomenon drove the Inquisition as well as secular movements like Stalinism.
And this is a negative attribute from your perspective you would say, yes?

Yes. I was arguing to demonstrate that my position on the issue of the similarity between the behavior of the religious and the nonreligious is correct. I sought to correct you by demonstrating that you are wrong. You appear to take correction as an insult which is a common reaction among the religious.
And this is a negative attribute from your perspective you would say, yes?
 
Top