Best way to get to know Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not asking for a god at all, but given that some people believe in a good god who loves them, seems like that god could give a more clear understanding of what he thinks makes a good that all his beloved creations can understand. People have an easier time getting around in the metro than they do understanding what god wants from them -- which can be pretty important,because if you get it wrong, God, who loves you, can send you to hell for eternity. Some christians don't believe it, but others do and it causes a great deal of anxiety for them, which God apparently doesn't care about or can't control, or something.

What about the blood issue raised earlier? God sending his only son to be brutally murdered. What about those hymns about being bathed in the blood of the lamb?

Nobody thinks you're asking for a god, don't take that literally.

To me, basic commandments about love and pacifism are appropriate and sufficient. I don't understand what you're asking for here. Do you want a Holy Book or prophet who gives instructions along the lines of, when terrorists bomb NYC, you should respond with love not hate, and you should do this by the specific actions of, I dunno, NOT attacking Iraq but instead providing more international aid? Because instructions that are so very specific are not going to be timeless, in the sense that they are useful for a full 2,000 years.

I agree that politicians and others are always arguing about what God wants. I think the left has the truer reading of the NT, and that the people arguing "God wants tax cuts" are self-serving. But again, I don't understand, are you arguing that God should smite the people on the wrong side?

The blood issue - actually, crucifixion is more about asphyxiation than about blood. But that's not the point. The point is that God was incarnated in human form, and humans suffer, and he shared in our suffering.

Got it - you're avoiding the blood issue. Do a little reading and you'll probably be be able to rationalize it - to yourself at least.

PS many humans don't suffer the way Christ supposedly did, and some suffer much worse - but they're not the son of god so they just die -- and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'.

Plus he didn't just share our suffering --he died for our sins and we're supposed to be ever grateful.

Also - remember communion, in which Christians eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ -for real if you're Catholic and symbolically if not. but why even drink blood symbolically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not asking for a god at all, but given that some people believe in a good god who loves them, seems like that god could give a more clear understanding of what he thinks makes a good that all his beloved creations can understand. People have an easier time getting around in the metro than they do understanding what god wants from them -- which can be pretty important,because if you get it wrong, God, who loves you, can send you to hell for eternity. Some christians don't believe it, but others do and it causes a great deal of anxiety for them, which God apparently doesn't care about or can't control, or something.

What about the blood issue raised earlier? God sending his only son to be brutally murdered. What about those hymns about being bathed in the blood of the lamb?

Nobody thinks you're asking for a god, don't take that literally.

To me, basic commandments about love and pacifism are appropriate and sufficient. I don't understand what you're asking for here. Do you want a Holy Book or prophet who gives instructions along the lines of, when terrorists bomb NYC, you should respond with love not hate, and you should do this by the specific actions of, I dunno, NOT attacking Iraq but instead providing more international aid? Because instructions that are so very specific are not going to be timeless, in the sense that they are useful for a full 2,000 years.

I agree that politicians and others are always arguing about what God wants. I think the left has the truer reading of the NT, and that the people arguing "God wants tax cuts" are self-serving. But again, I don't understand, are you arguing that God should smite the people on the wrong side?

The blood issue - actually, crucifixion is more about asphyxiation than about blood. But that's not the point. The point is that God was incarnated in human form, and humans suffer, and he shared in our suffering.

Got it - you're avoiding the blood issue. Do a little reading and you'll probably be be able to rationalize it - to yourself at least.

PS many humans don't suffer the way Christ supposedly did, and some suffer much worse - but they're not the son of god so they just die -- and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'.

Plus he didn't just share our suffering --he died for our sins and we're supposed to be ever grateful.

I did address the blood issue - I pointed out that it was asphyxiation. And per your second post, the Last Supper was a Passover and it was symbolic/metaphorical and didn't involve real blood, obviously. I tried to address your questions respectfully and you came back with silly snark ("you'll be able to rationalize it to yourself" and "we're supposeed to be eternally grateful" and "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell") which indicates you're not serious about talking. I don't waste my time like that, good bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not asking for a god at all, but given that some people believe in a good god who loves them, seems like that god could give a more clear understanding of what he thinks makes a good that all his beloved creations can understand. People have an easier time getting around in the metro than they do understanding what god wants from them -- which can be pretty important,because if you get it wrong, God, who loves you, can send you to hell for eternity. Some christians don't believe it, but others do and it causes a great deal of anxiety for them, which God apparently doesn't care about or can't control, or something.

What about the blood issue raised earlier? God sending his only son to be brutally murdered. What about those hymns about being bathed in the blood of the lamb?

Nobody thinks you're asking for a god, don't take that literally.

To me, basic commandments about love and pacifism are appropriate and sufficient. I don't understand what you're asking for here. Do you want a Holy Book or prophet who gives instructions along the lines of, when terrorists bomb NYC, you should respond with love not hate, and you should do this by the specific actions of, I dunno, NOT attacking Iraq but instead providing more international aid? Because instructions that are so very specific are not going to be timeless, in the sense that they are useful for a full 2,000 years.

I agree that politicians and others are always arguing about what God wants. I think the left has the truer reading of the NT, and that the people arguing "God wants tax cuts" are self-serving. But again, I don't understand, are you arguing that God should smite the people on the wrong side?

The blood issue - actually, crucifixion is more about asphyxiation than about blood. But that's not the point. The point is that God was incarnated in human form, and humans suffer, and he shared in our suffering.

Got it - you're avoiding the blood issue. Do a little reading and you'll probably be be able to rationalize it - to yourself at least.

PS many humans don't suffer the way Christ supposedly did, and some suffer much worse - but they're not the son of god so they just die -- and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'.

Plus he didn't just share our suffering --he died for our sins and we're supposed to be ever grateful.

I did address the blood issue - I pointed out that it was asphyxiation. And per your second post, the Last Supper was a Passover and it was symbolic/metaphorical and didn't involve real blood, obviously. I tried to address your questions respectfully and you came back with silly snark ("you'll be able to rationalize it to yourself" and "we're supposeed to be eternally grateful" and "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell") which indicates you're not serious about talking. I don't waste my time like that, good bye.

really -- that's snark? -- have you read the things you've called me and other atheists here? Anyone can read through it and see it. You might think what I say next is snark, but I see it as an observation -- instead of addressing the obvious importance of blood in the Christian tradition, you use ad hominem attacks and sign off as a way to avoid addressing the issue directly. I know all Christians are not like this. I imagine some reading through this are embarrassed for you, but remain silent, to avoid giving atheists any credence.

PS -- I did not say "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell" -- you said that.

I know many Christians who are comforted by their faith, who simply avoid or ignore conversation that is not in keeping with their beliefs. Maybe you'll be one of them someday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Got it - you're avoiding the blood issue. Do a little reading and you'll probably be be able to rationalize it - to yourself at least.

PS many humans don't suffer the way Christ supposedly did, and some suffer much worse - but they're not the son of god so they just die -- and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'.

Plus he didn't just share our suffering --he died for our sins and we're supposed to be ever grateful.

I did address the blood issue - I pointed out that it was asphyxiation. And per your second post, the Last Supper was a Passover and it was symbolic/metaphorical and didn't involve real blood, obviously. I tried to address your questions respectfully and you came back with silly snark ("you'll be able to rationalize it to yourself" and "we're supposeed to be eternally grateful" and "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell") which indicates you're not serious about talking. I don't waste my time like that, good bye.

really -- that's snark? -- have you read the things you've called me and other atheists here? Anyone can read through it and see it. You might think what I say next is snark, but I see it as an observation -- instead of addressing the obvious importance of blood in the Christian tradition, you use ad hominem attacks and sign off as a way to avoid addressing the issue directly. I know all Christians are not like this. I imagine some reading through this are embarrassed for you, but remain silent, to avoid giving atheists any credence.

PS -- I did not say "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell" -- you said that.

I know many Christians who are comforted by their faith, who simply avoid or ignore conversation that is not in keeping with their beliefs. Maybe you'll be one of them someday.

I'm stumped by your post. I've bolded the part above where you said Christians think "all non-believers to to hell," just so you can't keep denying you said that.

I've been respectful and perhaps you're confusing me with other posters, but that's no excuse for what's clearly snark on your part. Anybody who is wondering about this can read your very first sentence, above, for some oozing snark.

Also, you may not like my answers about the blood issue, but you're wrong to keep claiming I never answered them.

Finally, please point out what you say are my "ad hominem attacks." I've reviewed my own posts and I don't see them.

[Anonymous]

So at the Last Supper Jesus described the bread and wine as His body and blood. Some Christians believe this was metaphorical and therefore believe it symbolic when they take bread and wine in church. Some Christians believe He transformed the bread and wine to His body and blood then and we are still taking in His body and Blood today when we attend church and receive Communion.

FYI, not all Christians believe people go to hell for not believing. For example, how are those not exposed to the concept of God in a position to accept or deny Him? Doesn't seem fair, does it?

Now there is an idea out there that those who choose to the very end to willfully separate themselves from God are cast into hell, but hell as understood to be a chosen state of existence apart from God. A state of existence apart from God would by this definition be hell. So they choose the fate for themselves. Clear as mud, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Got it - you're avoiding the blood issue. Do a little reading and you'll probably be be able to rationalize it - to yourself at least.

PS many humans don't suffer the way Christ supposedly did, and some suffer much worse - but they're not the son of god so they just die -- and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'.

Plus he didn't just share our suffering --he died for our sins and we're supposed to be ever grateful.

I did address the blood issue - I pointed out that it was asphyxiation. And per your second post, the Last Supper was a Passover and it was symbolic/metaphorical and didn't involve real blood, obviously. I tried to address your questions respectfully and you came back with silly snark ("you'll be able to rationalize it to yourself" and "we're supposeed to be eternally grateful" and "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell") which indicates you're not serious about talking. I don't waste my time like that, good bye.

really -- that's snark? -- have you read the things you've called me and other atheists here? Anyone can read through it and see it. You might think what I say next is snark, but I see it as an observation -- instead of addressing the obvious importance of blood in the Christian tradition, you use ad hominem attacks and sign off as a way to avoid addressing the issue directly. I know all Christians are not like this. I imagine some reading through this are embarrassed for you, but remain silent, to avoid giving atheists any credence.

PS -- I did not say "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell" -- you said that.

I know many Christians who are comforted by their faith, who simply avoid or ignore conversation that is not in keeping with their beliefs. Maybe you'll be one of them someday.

I'm stumped by your post. I've bolded the part above where you said Christians think "all non-believers to to hell," just so you can't keep denying you said that.

I've been respectful and perhaps you're confusing me with other posters, but that's no excuse for what's clearly snark on your part. Anybody who is wondering about this can read your very first sentence, above, for some oozing snark.

Also, you may not like my answers about the blood issue, but you're wrong to keep claiming I never answered them.

Finally, please point out what you say are my "ad hominem attacks." I've reviewed my own posts and I don't see them.

Me: "and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'"

you, quoting me: "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell"

you quoting me a second time: "all non-believers to to hell,"

See the differences? understand what a direct quote is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Me: "and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'"

you, quoting me: "all Christians believe all non-believers go to Hell"

you quoting me a second time: "all non-believers to to hell,"

See the differences? understand what a direct quote is?

Understand what snark is? If not, see the bolded part.

Understand what a paraphrase is? Your first line is basically the same as those paraphrases. If you can't see that, you didn't do very well on the SATs (some snark, just for you, sweetie).

[Anonymous]

Folks, there's a reason why only one person is engaging with 14:32. We've learned from experience the only payoff is rudeness and drive-by sniping.

The rest of you would do well to find a better use for your time.

[Anonymous]

As for ad hominem attacks:

- But you forced me to say that you're stupid and unfunny.

- Sadly, it looks like your true goal is to be a schoolyard bully

- why are you so rude in the first place?

- you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

- Insulting a troll isn't an ad hominem


Please excuse if the above comments were not made by the person to whom I’m responding now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As for ad hominem attacks:

- But you forced me to say that you're stupid and unfunny.

- Sadly, it looks like your true goal is to be a schoolyard bully

- why are you so rude in the first place?

- you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

- Insulting a troll isn't an ad hominem


Please excuse if the above comments were not made by the person to whom I’m responding now.

WTF? Really. Thanks for the menu of random cites from multiple PPs.

You are a waste of space. I'm with the PP who said it's not ad hominem if it's true.

Outta here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As for ad hominem attacks:

- But you forced me to say that you're stupid and unfunny.

- Sadly, it looks like your true goal is to be a schoolyard bully

- why are you so rude in the first place?

- you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

- Insulting a troll isn't an ad hominem


Please excuse if the above comments were not made by the person to whom I’m responding now.

Ahahaha! Looks like it's time for a little self-reflection if so many people are saying these things to you, PP!