• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Jesus could not be the SOG(Son of God)

There is no evidence that shows Jesus is/was divine. In fact, there is not much, if any, evidence of his existence let alone that he is the SOG.

The story of his character wandering around does paint some disturbing scenes and gives us insight to his temper.

Why would a God with powers to bring forth life and give a lesson on charitable kindness feel a need to curse a fig tree just because it wasn`t producing fruit for him at the very moment he was wanting fruit. Perhaps it was even out of season for the fruit. Now, it would have been miraculous had Jesus ordered it to bring forth fruit out of season so that it may satisfy him and his follower with some sustenance.

But to Jesus uncharitableness, death and fear is the lesson he wants to impart. Curses the tree so it shrivels and can never bear/offer fruit again. He chooses death over life.

Perhaps, the fig tree recognized Jesus as an imposter to the Messiahship and that is why it refused to bring forth fruit for Jesus. Jesus -- perhaps a false prophet, which the scriptures warn the people to not be fooled by, was recognized for what he was and hence no fruit from the tree for him and his weapon carrying band of desert wanderers (we call them hippies today).

At any rate, it shows a selfish temper prone to pouting for not getting his way at the exact moment when he wants it his way. Is that the lesson we want our children to model their characters of self dicipline on? -- destroy when things don`t go exactly the way you want them to do at exactly the right time you deem is right for you? To me that sounds like a childish outlook on life and I am wondering if the writer of the story was not just letting out some childish steam as he wove a story together for the SOG cult that he was intent on building for his own nefarious goals.
 
You know, I just love it when Atheist trolls go attacking a religion's beliefs and making us all look bad.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter what a person believes, what matters is how they act on those beliefs.

If a Christian is kind and compassionate, good for him--if an atheist runs around trying to piss people off and insult them to make himself feel smart...

...well, you get the idea.

If a devout follower of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good person, what do his beleifs matter?

In fact, if a certain religion--regardless of how full of **** it is--consistantly makes it's followers better people, then maybe it's worth following.

Personally, I prefer objective "fact"--but pursuing truth hasn't made me a very good person, so maybe it's overrated. As it says in the Elder Edda (one of the books of Norse religion) "It is good to be wise, but not too wise--for a wise man's heart is seldom glad"

I guess the Vikings had the answers all along...

...now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink a couple pints of mead, pick up my broadsword, and go raid the neighboring villages for riches and women.

See you in Valhalla! ;-)
 
It is quite fine to use the Bible against itself and show its lack of reasoning. It is quite fine to ask questions that outline its lack of reasoning.

Famous Bible skeptics such as Ingersoll and Paine used the same approach, often adding some witticisms and declarations of "Nonsense!" to many parts they quoted. Because of them many have been freed from the mind trap that the Bible employs to catch its followers. Yes, they offended a lot of people, but because of their efforts the Bible was opened up to critical examination and now to talk about without fear, as one may do so with any other book, has now become allowable. However, even today in these modern times you will still see people reacting to Bible skeptics just the same way as they reacted to them 200 years ago. I guess many Bible believers just haven`t evolved.

The Bible is a book, no different than scientology or even War and Peace. Neither one has the right above another to occupy a place where it can`t be critiqued any harsher or less harsher than the other.

Anyone has just as much right to say books penned by the Clinton`s, or even the book of Scientology is a peace of c#@p. In fact, you may hear ol` Rush Limbaugh do so about Clinton`s books and he does not tip toe around the issue (and believe me, I am no fan of Limbaugh). But, the right remains there for him to do so and it is the responsibility of people to not seek out that which offends them or their sensitivities. Just turn it off and in this case just don`t come to this thread if you can`t handle straight talk on the Bible without tip toeing around walking on glass.

Different styles appeal to different people. My posts on the Bible do not encourage violence on others, the committing of crimes, or scream expletives or pajoratives at those who bring their message here. It directs all comments on the Bible at the Bible. I haven`t even used the word "c#@p" directed at it. Just my ideas in structured sentences and paragraphs.

The Bible itself offends me, but I am not for silencing it by having it censored and destroyed. On the contrary. I am quite fine with its continued existence as a book. I do however target the ideas and claims that spew forth from it.
 
Many parts of the bible contradict others. That's what I found so annoying about it. Shouldn't the bible be infallible? Great thread, SVF. Keep up the good work!
 
I don't think Jesus even said that he was the Son of God. I think that people just gave him that title, due to "Virgin" Mary giving birth.

I think he considered himself just as human as the next person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top