Once upon a time there was a God who wanted to be worshipped by everyone.
HE chose the descendants of Abraham as his vehicle to enter into the minds of everyone in the world.
HE gave Moses the LAW, the first and foremost being that Moses people should not worship any other gods on pain of death.
Moses people believed God and would put any of their people to death for not worshipping the one true God.
When Jesus preached that he was the Son of God and allowed people to worship him, the priests of God convicted Jesus of blasphemy and had him killed.
The people who worshipped Jesus said that the priests who had Jesus killed were wrong because God had just forgotten to mention that He was more of a 'three-in-one' God.
God tricked the descendants of Abraham's people into thinking that HE was just the one God when HE was actually a 'three-in-one' God and used HIS chosen people to sacrifice the Jesus part of HIMSELF to show that HE was not just God of the Jews, but God of everyone.
13 comments:
Abraham is just as fictional as the rest of Genesis. Can anyone verify the first real, historical Jewish personality using sources outside the bible? For example, does Moses appear in any Egyptian records from the period he was alleged to have lived there? Where does the legend end and the history begin?
Yea, Ed, but I'm saying 'according to their own storyline..'
I'm with you 100% about the whole 'God Story' being a flim-flam. As you already know.
But it does bring up a very interesting point about sacrifice: If it's true that Jesus was part of the 'three-in-one' deity, and that Jewish priests had been sacrificing animals to YHWH for a couple of thousand years (or so the story goes) to propitiate Him and atone for their sins, then HOW in the wide world of Sports does God sacrificing Himself to Himself solve anything about the alleged "Original Sin" thingy from the Mythical Garden of Eden???
"then HOW in the wide world of Sports does God sacrificing Himself to Himself solve anything about the alleged "Original Sin" thingy from the Mythical Garden of Eden???"
Ed, I still fail to see the great sacrifice, even if to himself.
He endured a few hours of pain for an eternity of TOTAL universal domination....NICE trade-off, if ya ask me.
Well said pboy. The history of trinitarianism is an interesting one, very political.
If indeed one takes the bible literally with everything it says about God and Gods, then tacks on the church history one has quite a God/s.
I would love to have been there for the writing of some ancient religious texts. Why did the Brahmans choose this over that, or just seeing some Egyptians putting the Book of the Dead together.
What used to be angels that are now gods, or the converse, who was a chief that is now a god?
Pertaining to your post, the Christian argument actually bases itself in the history of History (giggle). God's an angel, but he's not, he's singular and plural. The burning bush passage is really interesting...but then I'm a geek and that stuff isn't for everyone.
I'd yap yer ear off about language too. If I'd known better I would've gone to college straight out of highschool and become a linguist.
I think that King David and Solomon are fairly well documented, but I am not sure if they are first people mentioned in the Old Testament that we actually have a record, or if they are merely the most notable.
As for God sacrificing himself to himself: a guess it was just to throw a dash of infinity into the mix for redemptive sacrifice. A little bit of infinity goes a long way. Why God needs to game his own system though, God only knows...
John's Gospel makes him pre-existent and possibly God. In the others he was accused of equating himself with God by saying he was God's son.
John does have some good literature, but it doesn't fit with the themes of the others.
Fuck god and his bullshit!
That's interesting news. I've never looked into variations between the perspectives of the Gospel authors. Then again...I've never actually read the Bible, so...perhaps that's understandable...
God forgot that he was a 3 in 1 god. :-) LMAO
It really doesn't matter whether any of these characters were"real" as presented, agglomerations of some real and some fictional characters, or entirely fictional. In the end, neither the Old nor the New Testaments make "sense" all the time, nor for that matter, do they need to, if the reader can accept these accounts as allegory intended to "teach" us about what a large number of historians, writing at different times in history thought were important concepts about our potential relationship with God. If one does not "believe", nothing in scripture is of any importance anyway. If one does believe, he/she only needs to settle upon which of the many versions of scripture most closely expresses the beliefs thay grew up with or have come to agree with.
What is often actually happening in these discussions is an effort to use the anchronisms, illogical reports, and obvious impossibilities found in the Biblical accounts to try to convince some "believer" that they are wrong, or, more often it seems to me, to be less rigid in their beliefs that scripture is "literally" true. I suspect that most non-believers who engage in these intellectual excercises are guilty of both of these, although if one is really "sure" of his lack of belief, I wonder why anyone needs to disabuse "believers" of their faith in any event.
Gee Harvey, I'm guilty as HELL!
But, in my defence I didn't add any unnecessary vitriol here AND I am interested in how Christians 'square away' the Jewish 'one God' contrasted by the Christian 'three-in-one' God.
Even according to the Gospels themselves, the Sanhedrin was forced to convict Jesus of BLASPHEMY, to prevent a Jewish uprising and the death of their nation at the Empire's hand.
Seems to me that the priests were being prophetical, because, in the end, Messaih 'fueled' uprising DID cause the temple to be ripped down and the population to be scattered!
Pboy:
Every word in your posts regarding these issues is, in my opinion, not only correct but equally interesting to me, and... you have no need of "defense". As long as folks who choose to engage in these debates keep the real issues in mind and are truly interested in learning something (rather than proselytizing or "converting" anyone as our Christian brethren so often seem to be), I find them enlightening and even sometimes stimulating. I guess I was trying to point out that whereas "believers" understandably need periodic reinforcement of their "beliefs" (since they cannot get any from logic or evidence), atheists don't need to feel the same urgency to "prove" their position or "convert" anyone. Agnostics like me, who are still not absolutuely sure, might, however.
Post a Comment