Let me make this clear; I am not trying to convert you to join some cult. I will however, be questioning and challenging various religions and teachings, including Christianity. I do not do this to offend you. It is to educate you, and to challenge your current beliefs; to ask yourself why you believe that, and seek the answers. I do not expect you to agree with me, and I do not believe your beliefs are inferior to my own. If you wish to debate with me current or previous subjects of discussion, please do not comment but contact me in another way [whether it be facebook, deviantart, formspring, or phone].
P.S. I will swear in these entries. If I swear profusely, I will warn you ahead of time. Oh, and before I forget: each entry, I will try to pick a song for you to listen to as you read. This entry’s song is Ordinary Miracle by Sarah Mclachlan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4j_wrmpMnU
Now, today’s subject matter is Jesus. This will be the subject of future entries as well. A majority of this is from a debate I had with a male friend of mine, on face book. Enjoy.
Me: Seriously. God isn't some bitter old man in the sky who judges us, or enjoys causing us pain.
Guy: I think if there is a God, he has nothing to do with us
and that humanity is too full of themselves to think that he would
Me: Why wouldn't he? We're unlike any other living creature, or so it seems.
Guy: We are more of an insignificant speck in the universe than we can comprehend
An atom is to all of human history as all of human history is to the universe
probably smaller than an atom
Me: Yes, we are on a small distant planet. Yes, there may be other, more superior life out there. But such an amazing deity would at least put a bit of care and effort into us.
Guy: if there is a God, its only illogical to think that he likes life
He obviously likes stars and death more :v
Me: why? because he made more of them?
Guy: yeap :p
that or hes the world's worst RTS player
Me: A little boy may have a thousand marbles in his room, but that does not mean they are his favorite. Perhaps, he enjoys his one green army man, he found in a sandbox much more.
Guy: Retard kid for having thousands of marbles when he likes army men
Me: In your eyes, yes.
Guy: A thousand marbles is a sign of changing interest
I only have what is in my eyes
and so do you
Me: Perhaps, but with these eyes I strive to see what a thousand men cannot
Me: it confuses me. A little.
Guy: Everyone is striving to see what others cannot, everyone has their eyes open more than the other
Me: not everyone, but those who do indeed do.
Guy: Eh, I believe that everyone does. We are just too full of ourselves to realize it.
Ayn Rand was a very selfish person, and created a cult following of selfish people
Same as any "Jesus"
Jesus and Ayn Rand are equal in my eyes
Me: indeed she was, and indeed she did. However, I would not think of Christ as selfish. he promoted love and unity.
That isn't selfish.
Guy: and hate upon all others, ya
thats very selfish :p
Me: No. He didn't promote hate. It was the douches before and after him, the "disciples of christ" that did.
Guy: Their fault then :v it all ends up being the same
Me: They misunderstood his teachings. It may seem like that's all there is but there are those who see it differently, who aren't such hard headed zealots.
Guy: As there is for everything
It doesn't change that they exist only because of him though
Well, actually except the last part.
No matter what cause there may be, there will always be fools, zealots. Even if the cause was originally noble. But will that stop us from trying to promote what is good? No.
Guy: Well, the fools will be fools and the zealots will be zealots of whatever cause someone created.
That cause is still at fault for the creation of said zealots.
Me: Not true. Not every fool will be foolish in all that he does
Guy: Look at it this way:
If Hitler had been hit by a truck randomly before he started moving up the political ladder
the Holocaust would've never happened
If Jesus had been hit by lightning randomly before he started going allover, Christianity would've never happened.
Would the zealots of Nazism still existed if Hitler had died and wrought his havoc?
Same for Christianity
Me: I understand, that because they existed their cause was brought to light.
Hitler's Purification of the human race was as noble a cause as any
Me: How so?
Guy: It was his cause, he got people to support it
Jesus had a cause, got people to support it
Me: Having a large cause does not make it noble.
Guy: they created fools and zealots and everyone else
In hitler's image, there would be no disease or genetic defects
Me: Nor does creating fools and zealots. It is promoting what is good and does not harm others.
mathematically, we would be FAR FAR better off if hitler was more successful
Me: Hitler's cause harms people. Christ's does not.
Guy: case-in-point: hitler killed less people than christ's people has
11million Jews? thats nothing compared to the amount of people that have died in part of holy wars
Me: Yes, but that was due to misinterpretation of his cause. Not to mention he didn't write the bible; people were writing the bible long before he even existed.
Or, was born rather.
Guy: Hitler's cause is being misinterpreted by you
Its the same thing :v
Now we all jump at the opportunity to kill "future hitlers"
Me: How? Christ never intended to have anyone murdered, nor did he persecute people who did no harm. Hitler intended and did have people killed, people who had done him no harm.
Guy: Do admit though that NOTHING I could possibly ever say would change your view of "Christ"
Me: That's not true. It depends on what you're talking about. If you're telling me he's worse than Hitler, no I will not change my views.
Guy: He is quite effectively much worse than Hitler and nothing you say could ever change that view I have :v
Just because your cause was misinterpreted doesn't mean you still aren't liable for it.
"I didn't mean to kill hundreds of millions of people"
'I didn't know my actions would kill hundreds of millions"
It just wouldn't hold up against a judge
Imagine Jesus and Hitler being tried for war crimes
Me: But he isn't liable for the actions of those who came before him, in the old testament. Not to mention he didn't ask to be documented in the bible; others did that. Those who documented the supposed "Christian" teachings are more to blame than Christ himself.
Guy: So, you're saying the only source of ANY information on Jesus goes against hs teachings?
There is absolutely no other historical record of him even existing
if you go against that source, you give credence to the idea he never existed
Me: For the most part, yes. That is why one must use common sense to analyze his supposed teachings, and the teachings and history of those that followed him and his god.
Guy: I just feel that you just killed any hope of a logical debate.
You're basically saying "the Bible got ALL this wrong, but it was correct about this"
If there was a book full of facts, and all but one of the facts was untrue, what would you say of the book?
Me: Maybe. But you see, we can neither prove or disprove his existence. We cannot prove that it was indeed James who wrote James, or Moses who wrote Genesis. One must accept it, otherwise it's just a bunch of hooblah. Now it seems ho it was altered over time, intentionally in order to manipulate others, which is manipulating what was once a good thing to appease your own goals [typically greed of money and power]. And so, to see what the original texts said one must go back to the Hebrew translations, which I cannot do.. and I think I'm not making sense...shit, my brain isn't working..
And to answer your question...I would take each fact with a grain fo salt, and do what research I could on those that don't make sense, or I doubt.
Guy: This said book promised 100% facts. What would you say of that promise?
Me: Then it is broken.
Guy: That promise is equivalent to the existence of Jesus ;v
You can choose to still believe in that broken promise
or you can realize that believing such a promise is foolhardy.
Me: But Jesus' existence isn't a promise.
Guy: Re-read my argument before your huge wall of text
If you treat the book of facts and the bible differently, you are being subjective and any such arguments you make are invalidated for arguments sake :v
I'm saying in some parts, it was right and others it wasn't. I'm not talking about the historical aspect per say, but the teachings
Guy: You can't treat the historical part and the teachings part differently
Its in the same book
Me: Sure you can. If a book on horses lists all of the correct breeds of horses [at that time], yet is in accurate in how to take care of the horse, it does not make everything about the book inaccurate, but only portions of it. However, one must question whether all of it is inaccurate.
Guy: Going back to the Hitler comparison...
What about his battle strategy? His political success?
They are parts of him
but he as a whole gets the reputation he does
There is no difference between people and books
Hitler's successes are voided against his failures
Me: As a military leader, he did a damn good job. I'll give him credit for that.
Guy: Would you still say he deserves death?
Would you still say that the Bible deserves credibility?
They are the same question.
Me: He does not deserve death because it is kind. He deserves to live, to live a long dull life, preferably painful. And yes, the current English versions of the bible deserves SOME credibility.
Guy: You answered No to one and Yes to the other
That doesn't work :p
Its a hypocritic clash of your own argument
Me: Yes, because I saw them as two seperate questions. I have no one same answer for both questions.
Guy: Well, they are the same question, and you cannot answer them seperately without going against things you have already said.
Me: No I'm not. And not they aren't.
Guy: I constructed those questions using parallels from the prior argument
They are on the same moral, ethical, and logical planes.
Answering differently shows subjectivity and that dissolves proper debate ;v
Me: No they aren't, I saw the parallels.
And how does it show subjectivity?
Guy: Given you have the same morals ethics and logical thinking that you do
we only know them from how you answer questions
if you answer two different questions based upon the same morals ethics and logics
then that is subjective
Me: But they don't imply the same morals, ethis, and logics. That's the problem
Guy: Meh, they do. My argument was pretty damn good D:
Me: Hitler's goods do not outweigh the bad, nor did he intend good on everyone. Jesus goods actually do outweigh the bad, which I can't prove right now because I don't have the facts and I have a headache
Now I bet I’m not the only one with a headache. Basically, this guy sees Hitler as superior to Jesus because he and his followers have killed less than Christ. However, Hitler was around for a much short time than Jesus. If given enough time, I think he would have wiped out more Christians have. This also leads us to question how much Christians are responsible for, if they’re responsible at all. Are they responsible for Holy Wars? I would say yes. I am not well adversed in religious wars, but I cannot think of others they would be responsible for. Christianity is not responsible for the butchering of Native Americans and their land; greed is. [It was the only other one violent act come to mind]. What about suicides, namely of persecuted homosexuals, or those of different colors? I don’t know. I don’t think Christianity itself would be responsible, but rather the bullies. Bullies will use anything and everything to demean their victims, even religious teachings [which, if one thinks about, is very twisted].
I would like to put this into perspective: When John Lennon’s murderer was asked why he did the deed, he held a copy of Catcher in the Rye as the answer. Does this make J.D. Salinger responsible for John Lennon’s death? I personally, do not think so. Mr. Salinger didn’t ask for Lennon to be murdered; his book did convey a message about standing out, originality however [which is not wrong].
I would also like to point this out; Hitler was a hypocrite. He was not of “Aryan” descent [which is a fictional nationality] or even a german. He had brown hair and brown eyes; therefore he would be subjected to eradication according to his own cause. Jesus did nothing of the sort. In fact, if Jesus met my friend [who was an atheist] I would like to think that he would embrace him. Hitler on the other hand, would have him killed [as he is definetly not of Aryan descent].
My point is, I don’t think Jesus was a bad guy. Whether you think he was the Savior of humanity or not, he definetly meant well. People tend to degrade him since he is the source of Christianity. I do not believe he is to blame, but rather misinterpreation and/or possible editing of the bible. This, I will go into further detail on in my next entry, and into why Jesus is framed.
I hope you enjoyed today’s entry. I know it’s not great, but I’ll get the hang of it eventually.
Speak your mind, spread the love, and blessed be,
My formspring: http://www.formspring.me/wutheringmoon
My deviantart: http://aravelle.deviantart.com/