Jesus: Unacceptable Sacrifice

See, this is why he got spat back out of heaven after three days…

You’re a freakin’ moron.

Just gotta love it when the good ol’ atheists get voted for readers’ choice. Guess what… God loves you.

You know, if you spent half as much time and intelligence on actually writing things for the good, imagine what you could accomplish. Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t have to follow any previous laws or models because those laws were created by men, what they THOUGHT God wanted of them. God sent Jesus, so surely He can and did orchestrate the way he was to be “sacrificed.” Using the Romans, at thebehest of the Jews, shows that all people are responsible, all people sin, and all people can be redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice. I do realize, though, that any discussion here with you is futile, because atheists truly are second to none in their zealotry.

“those laws were created by men, what they THOUGHT God wanted of them…I do realize, though, that any discussion here with you is futile, because atheists truly are second to none in their zealotry.” Among believers in God there is ONLY what people THINK God wants of them. There is a HUGE range of what people think God wants from them. Why doesn’t God just make it obvious to everyone?

I love the people who don’t sign their names, lets defend your hero from behind the shadows.

I think people leave unsigned notes so they don’t get a bunch of hatred and insanity spewn at their diaries. A diary like this one WELCOMES such debate, but not all other diaries want the drama… So don’t hate just because you signed your name because you KNOW you don’t want people to come spew drama on your diary! and if you do want them to… well then I’m wrong, but those who don’tsign probably like staying in the shadows for a reason.

I will gladly sign my name when it matters. I’m not ashamed of my “hero” as you put it, but it does me not one iota of good to have a shitstorm descend on my diary. Why doesn’t God just make it obvious to everyone? Because then there would be no need for faith. Jesus came as a new kind of sacrifice. The Jews before him did what they knew they were to do. Jesus made their kind of sacrifice,as well as adherence to their laws for fear of death, null. People who refuse to entertain the notion of God and Jesus are allowed to do that. But when you make it your life’s goal to change the minds of others (for what purpose? So they won’t be duped? Well, really – what’s it to you? Why dod you care?) you are doing the very thing that most atheists really hate Christians for: spreading your beliefs and scoffing at any who don’t agree. You are in no way better, more enlightened, or more accepting than are Christians.

For what purpose? You can find a few reasons on the very site from which this entry comes (see citation at the top): http://conversationalatheist.com/general-essays/why-engage-in-religious-debates/ Here are the four reasons: 1) If people are loudly proclaiming their false beliefs, they should not be encouraged or go unchallenged. 2) Faith-based religion wastes the time, money, and resources of well-meaning people. 3) Religion teaches inappropriate responses to real world problems. 4) Promoting faith as a virtue gives credence to religious leaders who have authority for terrible reasons. Satisfied?

You said, “Because then there would be no need for faith.” Yes, that’s right. Isn’t that a good thing? Let me ask you this. What knowledge can you reliably and verifiably obtain through faith? From my perspective as a non-believer, I see that many people have chosen many different, often inconsistent, sometimes contradictory beliefs based on faith. That very simply observation seems to suggest that faith is not a reliable means of knowing any truths about the natural world. Do you think that it does? If not, then what is desirable about faith?

“Why doesn’t God just make it obvious to everyone? Because then there would be no need for faith.” No need for faith. Isn’t that exactly what the New Covenant as written in Jeremiah 31:33 is supposed to bring about?

“Jeremiah 31:33-34 (NRSV) – “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts… No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me.”

Here are the four reasons: 1) If people are loudly proclaiming their false beliefs, they should not be encouraged or go unchallenged. So then it’s become a pissing match? My belief is better than yours? Don’t atheists hate Christians for challenging others’ beliefs? 2) Faith-based religion wastes the time, money, and resources of well-meaning people. Again – why do you care? It’s their time, money, and resources. In a Capitalistic society, how they use these things has nothing to do with you. 3) Religion teaches inappropriate responses to real world problems. Inappropriate according to whom? Jesus taught about love, acceptance, forgiveness, fairness. How are these inappropriate? 4) Promoting faith as a virtue gives credence to religious leaders who have authority for terrible reasons. Faith is supposed to be in the Lord, not in men. This point is valid only in pointing out that too many “relgious” people give too much authority to men. That is not how it was intended to be. I wish it were different, but am not williing to throw out all religion and faith based on it.

Let’s dive into just one of these. “Religion teaches inappropriate responses to real world problems. Inappropriate according to whom? Jesus taught about love, acceptance, forgiveness, fairness. How are these inappropriate?” Real world problem: epilepsy. Jesus’ solution? Drive out the demon that causes it with prayer. In fact, He said it ONLY will come out with prayer. see Mark 9:17-29

I refer back to Jesus in the above note because I could probably agree with you over and over on the inappropriateness of some specific religion’s practices and interpretations; however, your goal is not to discredit specific religions, but the basis for Christian religion itself – Jesus. You seek to disprove Jesus, yet you use as examples and justification the works of men. If you were to look back at Jesus’ teachings and mission, you would see that if frequently differs from what humans have used it for. That is a sad symptom of human nature – to use all for their own gain. You do it. Christians do it. If your goal is to discredit Jesus’ divinity, you should stick to that and not muddy the waters with human foibles. And why faith? Because I don’t want to live a life believing this is all there is. There is no crimee or weakness in that. It’s just the honest truth.

Yes. I would argue that promoting the idea that illness, disease, etc., come from demon possession is wildly inappropriate especially in modern times. The fact that these superstitions persist retards medical progress. Also, here’s a story that came out Monday: Man beats Demon out of his son: http://tinyurl.com/texas-demon Full “Why Argue” essay here: http://tinyurl.com/c9ed72

You assume it was epilepsy because you want to and because modern people want to find a definition for everything. You don’t know for a fact that it was epilepsy and not a demon spirit. Look, I don’t go around thinking people are possessed, but there is no proof either way – it could have been a demon or it could have been epilepsy – you can’t assume it was anything other than what it says.And I think sensible believers, in this day and age, would agree that if a person has epilepsy that can be controled with medication, then it should be.

“And I think sensible believers, in this day and age, would agree that if a person has epilepsy that can be controled with medication, then it should be.” See we agree! Jesus’ teachings on every single medical question have been improved upon by scientists. This is exactly what I’m arguing for. Too many people say, “Jesus said it, I believe it.” I’m glad that you reject his demonology.

I don’t reject his demonolgy. It veery well could have been a demon. In any case, there weren’t medications for epilepsy then. Epilepsy was likely not recongnized as an actual disorder. Yes, that does mean that things have changed since Jesus was on earth. And that means what? That everything he said and everything that came before is worthless? That makes no sense. All of this, all of what you talk about, is merely background noise. I know that you believe that if you can get people to listen to the background noise, they’ll forget the real truth and the bottom line. Jesus, the Son of God, died to absorb the sins of all people. All the all other things are merely accessories to the fact.

“Epilepsy was likely not recongnized as an actual disorder.” Right. “God incarnate” knew as much about the world as every other human at the time. “…everything he said and everything that came before is worthless?” Haven’t argued that. I made a specific claim: Jesus’ teachings on every single medical question have been improved upon by scientists. Do you agree or disagree?

“I don’t reject his demonolgy.” That’s too bad. There is a boy with skull fractures in a Texas hospital RIGHT NOW because his father also believed in demons. Can you point to a single positive thing that has come from believing in demons? If asked to point out a single positive thing that the germ theory of disease has contributed, I would say, the worldwide eradication of smallpox.

A belief or thing does not have to have brought about somethng positive for it to be real. AIDS comes to mind. The truth of it is – you are not going to be dissuaded and there is a good chance you will die with no belief in a higher power. That is your right. I don’t want to die that way. For right or wrong, I want there to be hope. I am certain I am not wrong, but if I am, I am. Mybeliefs have brought me comfort. They have made ma a better person. You can debate the little things all you want by inspecting the finest points of Christianity and ignoring the bigger truths. That’s your right, so have at it. Do not fool yourself, though, into thinking that your proseletyzing is any different than any other mainline church. Your atheism is a religion of its own, one you are clearly invested in spreading to as many people as possible. Again, that is your right. But please – when, in the course of spreading atheism, you decide to bash Christians for their zeal at spreading their truth, understand that you are not so different.

“But please – when, in the course of spreading atheism, you decide to bash Christians for their zeal at spreading their truth…” This is now the second time that you have implied that I criticize Christians for loudly proclaiming their beliefs. I have not, and I do not. I think religiously superstitious people should be more identifiable, not swept under the rug and ignored as harmless.

If you believe in demons, what was your reaction to the news story? Perhaps the beating got the demons out of the child? Or have you outgrown that superstition? Believing that demons cause problems leads to things like: beating children to get the demons out. Or pouring alcohol into the eyes of children who are seen as witches (ref earlier entry).

Nobody is criticizing anyone based on the amount of zeal they have. We criticize people who claim to know that which they do not – zeal or no zeal. Your characterization of atheism as a religion and this writing as proselytizing is meaningless. Neither ATB nor any other atheist that I know are standing around making fantastic claims about the world that cannot be verified.

“My beliefs have brought me comfort. They have made ma a better person.” But they are not harmless. Your beliefs brought you comfort and another child skull fractures. That news story shows how superstition can lead directly to very bad things for very stupid reasons. Worse it looks to me like you are attempting to shield the superstitious “belief in demons” from any kind of scrutiny.

No. Anyone who beats a child should be punished, period. I absolutely believe that a lot of horrible things are done by people in the name of religion. I also believe a lot of horrible things are done by people who then later claim it was because of religion because they think their “religious” beliefs might shield them from the full force of the law. Jesus never advocated beating achild or hurting people to remove demons and whether people can be demon possessed or not, I don’t know. Theee is no excuse for what some people have done in the name of religion, but that does not mean all religion should be thrown out. If we were to follow that logic, we would have to throw out music, books, and video games that have caused people to do horrible things. We would have to throw out medications that were well-intentioned, but which have caused people to do crazy things and alcohol, which has certainly caused people to do crazy things, and even tobacco, because pregnant women smoke and cause damage to their unborn children with those products. There is sin in the world and horrible things. There would be with religion or without it.

I have no idea why that saved twice. At any rate – I still can’t imagine why it matters to you that some people choose to believe. You say it’s because people do bad things in the name of religion. People also do bad things in the name of money – do you go after their love of money? People do bad things in the name of fame – do you criticize people who believe fame is the road to true happiness? People do bad things in the name of no religion – do you criticize them? Not in this kind of way, be honest. There will always be sin and ugliness in the world, but what aboput all the people who do kind, wonderful things in the name of religion? What about people who specifically feel led to care for others in response to the belief in God? Should we do away with them, too, and all the good things they want to do?

The issues here as I see it is not specifically religion, money, fame, etc., but (1) dogma and (2) irrational or uncritical reasoning. Being uncritical can accidentally lead to great things as well as to bad things. Critical thinking, however, should be able to, in theory, minimize the bad. Religion is just one form of dogmatic and uncritical thinking that is worth criticizing. There are certainlyothers.

“I still can’t imagine why it matters to you that some people choose to believe.” Because these superstitions have a direct effect on the world I live in. To pick 2: 1. A child is in the hospital with a fractured skull as a direct result from his parents believing in demons. 2. Prop 8 passed in CA and bigotry became the law because believers read a magic book with bad ideas.

Just curious, exactly what is different about what you’re doing by challenging me, and what I do when I challenge believers?

“You say it’s because people do bad things in the name of religion.” You keep wanting me to say things that I do not and have not said. Stop doing this. “People also do bad things in the name of money – do you go after their love of money?” You seem to be confusing what you are trying to do: shield irrational beliefs from criticism; with what I do, which is to criticize irrational beliefs.

If you want to criticize irrational and bad beliefs that people have regarding money, etc., go ahead. I will not attempt to shield stupid ideas from criticism. Ever. This is a fundamental difference between you and me.

There are definitely a lot of areas of thinking that have irrational and stupid beliefs that have bad consequences for this world. The fact that I focus on religious beliefs is no more to the point than asking a doctor who works on a cure for cancer, “well, what work have you done for heart disease? Don’t you know it kills more people in the US than cancer?”

Unless that doctor is trying to prevent others from working on heart disease, I would argue that his effort toward curing cancer is not misguided.

1. But this child has nothing to do with you. It doesn’t affect your world directly and is by all standards a pretty isolated incident, considering the number of children who are abused and fractured in this country every day for reasons unexplained and most likely not having to do with religion. Again, Jesus did not ask parents to hurt their children. And aside from using this child as a tool, what have you done to eliminate the suffering of children? 2. You stop short of making the generalization that all believers voted yes on or supported Prop 8. I am in California and was an outspoken opponent of Prop 8. I marched and spoke at a debate forum against Prop 8. We can probably thank the Mormons for 8, a group who is felt by many mainstream Christians to have ideals which fall outside the scope of the Bible. And yes, there are many, many mainstream believers who supported 8. Some are my friends and I fought them to the bitter end and continue to do so as we work to get 8 overturned and the rights of same-sex married couples to retain their marriages.

And though you may not have specifically said that one of the reasons you speak out against Christianity is because people do bad things in the name of religion, you are using the case of this child as a reason to discredit religion, specifically Christianity. You said yourself that Jesus says in the Bible that prayer is the only way ot remove a demon of the kind the person suffered. So then why can’t we just agree that the father of that child was grossly misguided and very likely off his rocker and let that argument rest? This father is not the poster child for Christian fathers everywhere.

As to the difference between my challenging you and you challenging believers – there is none. But you’ve created a diary here that is specifically devoted to the atheist agenda and presumably inivites debate. If that wasn’t your intention, then I will stop here. In actuality, I may as well stop here, anyway, and sincerely hope that those who follow you are the ones who had already decided theirposition and not those who are grappling for answers. I think it would be a sad thing to see people devoid of hope and no longer interested in seeking answers or who God is to them because a group of people think that belief in God is irrational.

“the case of this child as a reason to discredit religion, specifically Christianity.” So you didn’t read the article. The article was about two Buddhist parents who attempted to beat the demons out of their child. What do you say to this? They should instead share YOUR thoughts on how demons ought to be addressed? How are you supposed to deal with non-Christian demons?

Of course, you yourself admit that which religion is right, and what parts are not obvious: “Why doesn’t God just make it obvious to everyone? Because then there would be no need for faith.” So, how was this man supposed to know that his Buddhist beliefs (including his version of demon possession) were wrong?

“We can probably thank the Mormons for 8, a group who is felt by many mainstream Christians to have ideals which fall outside the scope of the Bible.” So you are an advocate of some form of “reasonable faith”? Or “rational faith”? Or how did you figure out that Mormons and their magic book are any less valid than the Bible? If I only criticized Mormon faith, would you have an issue with me?

If you only criticized the Mormon faith, I would still probably have issue with you because your stand would be the same – that believing in God is irrational. I can’t speak for Mormons and don’t have the POV of Mormons because I’m not one, and admittedly, some of their tactics make me insane. No, you’re right. I did not read the article because the entire thing sickens me. Again, I’m not aBuddhist and have no idea what Buddhists are encouraged to do when they believe their child is demon possessed – obviously this is not a tactic I would ever advocate, nor would I ever be likely to think my child demon possessed. Also, I don’t know if part of this father’s impetus to do such a horrible thing was based on cultural issues aside from faith. I know you believe all religion is irrational, but my perspective is a Christian one and therefore, my reactions are based upon what I know of Christianity. Since I can only defend what I know and I know that speaking purely from a Jesus standpoint, we are to love one another and not abuse, degrade, marginalize or discriminate against one another.

“I would still probably have issue with you because your stand would be the same – that believing in God is irrational.” Do you think that believing in God is rational? Do you think that believing in demons is rational? Do you think that believing in demon possession is rational? Do you think that believing in demon possession that is curable by beatings is rational?

If you say “yes” to some of the questions and “no” to others, what specifically makes the “yes” ones more rational than the “no” ones?

well. i do support unsigned notes 🙂

Heh. Years later, sweet B’baby BeJesus, and you’re still flogging that same dead horse, ey? Over and over in the exact same spots. The anonymous noter is probably AUUB.

haredawg, I don’t think that you have actually said something substantive on my diary, ever. Perhaps you’ll turn over a new leaf? Try something new for a change, you might like it. — ATB (not signed in)

Heh, yeah, I know you don’t think that I’ve ever said anything substantive on your diary. It’s my opinion that you are grossly mistaken. That’s why we love each other so very much, nicht wahr? Haredawg, signed in.