So Why Is The Gospel Still An Offense?

[Elizabeth I]

I dunno, Elisabeth, that could just as well a genuine concern, the way I read it. Born of a disturbing disconnect with reality / living in a weird fairy tale world, but nevertheless...

ETA: Basically all I'm saying is, don't forget Hanlon's Razor

Yeah, well, after reading some of her other posts, it's hard to shave with that particular razor. Although that is one of my favorite principles.

2) But wait... according to Revelation 22:16 - "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Isn't the "Morning Star" Lucifer? And isn't Lucifer...well, you-know-who?

I don't want to appear ignorant, or to revisit something which may have been covered before, but what does "coredeptrous" mean? As far as I can find, it doesn't appear in any dictionary known to any search engine which I access.

Am I, perhaps, right in thinking that it is yet another invention of our KuriousKathy, like most of her religion appears to be.

I think it refers to Mary being a co-redeemer, along with Jesus.

Instead of Jesus being the only way to have your sins forgiven, Mary provides an alternative avenue.

Agggh! My fingers feel weird after typing such utter nonsense!

Yes, I think the target word (which was missed by a wide margin) was "co-redemptress."

 

[Piggy]

Why am I here?

Shooting fish in a barrel may blow off some steam, but it's not good for the psyche.

These kinds of threads bring out the worst in me.

Time to unsubscribe.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, I find it offensive.

I find it offensive that so many young people are told that they are worthless without your approval.

I find it offensive that children are haunted with fears of eternal torture should they think the wrong thought

I find it offensive that you have set an impossible standard so that you can tell everyone, no matter how good a person, that they have 'fallen short'.

I find it offensive that you applaud sacrifice and suffering, as if pain is something to aspire to.

I find it offensive that you will not be satisfied until everyone is living his life full of guilt and shame. Guilt for the suffering Jesus endured, which is constantly rubbed in our faces as our fault, and shame that we continue to do what supposedly caused this horror: be human.

Yes I find the whole concept of Christianity offensive. The idea that god offers us the 'gift' of salvation is as ludicrous to me as that of a slaver offering his slave the 'gift' of freedom, should he only bow down and thank his wonderful master. The idea that god holds the threat of punishment over us for things we cannot avoid is as evil as a parent that admonishes his child for defecation, sparing the rod only should he admit that he was wrong and promise never to do it again.

I find your need to worship pathetic. And your god disgusting.

That's an excellent phrasing.

This is your warning that I intend to steal it.

 

[fromdownunder]

To take a slightly different tack, KK, you do realise that about 67% of the living worlds population is not Christian, don't you? And since you seem to have knocked Roman Catholics out of the picture as well, suddenly we are up to about 83% of the world not being Christian.

Then we can also add all people who existed prior to the expansion, by the loving Christian Europeans, into the Americas, the Pacific Basin, Australia, Southern Africa...etc... thet never knew or even heard of your God. And the millions who still have not. All destined to rot in your hell?

So, over the entire life of the human race, what % would you personally define as a succes rate. I would put your God's success rate at under 10%, and add the point that with millions (billions?) of people, He/She/It never even bothered.

Now, if I had a Business Plan where I just happened to be in charge of the universe, and was "perfect" I would think that a success rate of probably under 10% of my creation was a MAJOR fail.

Or perhaps he just ran out of capital, and could not build Heaven to the original specifications (not enough Gold).

Hell of course would be much easier, since powered suns take Billions of years to burn out....oh wait, that's not for eternity either.

Tell me Kathy, what are you going to do forever - the same old prayers, and halo's and harps, and chatting to Jesus will probably become a bit boring after the first Trillion years. And given that there will be, apparently, no sex in your heaven, you do not even have that as a sideline.

Norm

 

[shadron]

According to wikipedia in the article on the solemnity surrounding the pope's infallibility (termed his speaking ex cathedra)",

"Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed Immaculate Conception an ex cathedra dogma in December 1854."

Note the dates. While Mary's feast day of the Immaculate Conception was set in the 1400s, only lately has the church gotten around to actually proclaiming it, along with the notion of total Papal infallibility.

 

[cyborg]

So again I ask if God has made a way of escaping judgment for each of us who would not want to take it?

Those who believe in justice don't try to escape it.

 

[ParrotPirate]

What I find offensive is people like you trying to cram your beliefs down other peoples throats. Will you ever grasp the idea that no matter how hard you try,no matter how much time you waste,you will not convert anybody here. As hard as it clearly is for you to understand, not everybody on the planet believes the same things you do. Or wants/needs to.

 

[Minarvia]

I find many believers offensive, too. But I hope Kathy is not scared off of this thread. I hope she comes back and answers our questions. I still think this can turn into a productive, or at least interesting, exchange.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it the message of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that you find offensive?
Or is it the Christians who share the message with you?

Over and over I hear people stating mostly it’s the Christians they find offensive rather than Christ. If you judge Christ by his followers then you are not seeing him right since Jesus was the only sinless being who ever lived. I also think it best to remember Jesus said it is not the well that need a doctor but the sick so Christians just have gotten to a place where they agree with God and they know they need a Savior then we repent and follw his teachings. Do we do it perfectly no, but we admit our need for forgivess as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If you could truly have the gift of repentance then you would know it’s all true.

So again I ask if God has made a way of escaping judgment for each of us who would not want to take it? The message of the cross is only foolishness to those who are perishing, but the good news is you still have time to change your mind and receive what Jesus did for you on the cross. He died for all of us so we could be reconciled to God, what’s so offensive about that?

No, it's the bigotry against homosexuals, the anti-condom fanaticism that results in an increase in HIV, the anti-abortion fanaticism that leads to people gunning down doctors in their homes and blowing up nurses going to work, it's the right wing hypocrites in the Republican base that want to rewrite history and pass laws that make Falwell, Dobson, and Hagee happy while they take the freedom away from anyone who doesn't believe their god myth, it's the anti-science movement that prefers we all stick our heads in the sand when we see any evidence that contradicts a Bible which BTW, contradicts itself, ....

Should I go on?

 

[Neverfly]

In other words: Many of the Modern Christian claims inspire hate, judgment, condemnation, intolerance...
The Chick Tracts thread shows clear examples of this.

That could be offensive.

Although a great many christian people are not offensive, it's the deep rooted fundamentalist campaigns and activities that can very clearly cross lines it has no business crossing.

And what can make that very hard to deal with is that the bigotry and inspiration of judgment and hate is ordained by a divine source- So there is no logical refutation of it.

As long as they believe it's true, they will never allow themselves to stop and consider how wrong they are. They will only slough it off as "The deceit of Satan".

 

[Ducky]

I find many believers offensive, too. But I hope Kathy is not scared off of this thread. I hope she comes back and answers our questions. I still think this can turn into a productive, or at least interesting, exchange.

Did you even look at the link I put on page 1?

There will be no interesting exchange. There will be no actual discourse. There will be preaching and evasion and offensive statements. It already is shaping up to be exactly the train wreck the last thread was.

4 years of the same habits. It will not change in this thread.

 

[Minarvia]

No, it's the bigotry against homosexuals, the anti-condom fanaticism that results in an increase in HIV, the anti-abortion fanaticism that leads to people gunning down doctors in their homes and blowing up nurses going to work, it's the right wing hypocrites in the Republican base that want to rewrite history and pass laws that make Falwell, Dobson, and Hagee happy while they take the freedom away from anyone who doesn't believe their god myth, it's the anti-science movement that prefers we all stick our heads in the sand when we see any evidence that contradicts a Bible which BTW, contradicts itself, ....

Should I go on?

Heh...yeah! How about the prejudice against women, all not of your nation, murdering your own children if they are disobedient, having to marry your brother-in-law, offer your daughters for rape...

OTOH...naw...it would take too long.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

According to wikipedia in the article on the solemnity surrounding the pope's infallibility (termed his speaking ex cathedra)"...
"Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ...
Note the dates. While Mary's feast day of the Immaculate Conception was set in the 1400s, only lately has the church gotten around to actually proclaiming it, along with the notion of total Papal infallibility.

Shadron -- the Pope is not always infallible. He may be infallible when speaking on specific issues of the Faith on which he has, as it were, consulted Upstairs.
"Total Papal infallibility" is a misleading term, and not even believed by the Pope himself!

I guess I did learn something from all those convert-to-be classes, MK

 

[MIKILLINI]

It's hard to try to put ourselves in Gods place because trying to grasp the meaning of what holiness looks like or is well it just isn't that easy. But I guess if I was a Holy God I would know I had to judge sin unless someone accepts my way out which is through Christ. Jesus paid the penalty for us so we do not have to go before the great white throne of judgement.

Let's go back in time just a bit..Back to the Garden of Eden. Soon after Adam and Eve had been created, they were informed by God to not eat from the tree of knowledge conveniently located in the garden center.

Now here is a very questionable judgement call: God creates a tree that would cause man great suffering and sorrow if A&E ate from it, thereby causing the condemnation of his creation.

How wise is that? If God so loves you, why would he leave the possibility of misery and death available in the garden? Why did he not warn A&E of Lucifer? You know, Lucifer, the adversary who convinced many angels to turn against God? Didn't God know Lucifer would come around and try to deceive A&E? How much death, destruction and subsequent everlasting punishment would have been eliminated if that one single tree was not in the garden?
Why leave the possible chance of sin available to man?

 

[HansMustermann]

Now, if I had a Business Plan where I just happened to be in charge of the universe, and was "perfect" I would think that a success rate of probably under 10% of my creation was a MAJOR fail.

Or perhaps he just ran out of capital, and could not build Heaven to the original specifications (not enough Gold).

Personally I see Him as proof of Peter's Principle. ("Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.")

Think about it. Brilliant guy programs a whole universe in 7 days. Thereby automatically promoting himself to manager of it all.

And there's where it all starts going south. He shows all the signs of someone who hates that job, doesn't have much patience for it, avoids doing it for as long as possible, and then throws a fit and makes an example of a random bystander when he has no choice but to do his job.

He's the kind of manager who locks himself in his office for year instead of actually managing, then comes out punishing left and right because you didn't do what you should have guessed he wanted you to do. And even then he doesn't come out and say something clear like "guys, we need to make more gizmos than dohickeys in this market", but throws a few vague and contradictory slogans your way and disappears right back in his office before you can ask questions.

He's the kind who plays favourites in a big way. He goes for yes-men, toadies, sycophants and brown-noser in a big way. (Think: praising his Junior is more important than what you actually do the other 99% of the time.) He dishes out rewards or punishments, favour or enmity, based on something that one of your predecessors did and never mind that you didn't even know that guy, much less have anything to do with his decisions. He routinely punishes the wrong people to make some weird point. (See, Numbers: it wasn't the apostates who got that plague, but the ones still faithful to him.) He pulls some cruel practical jokes (see: the whole candid-camera-like episode of asking Abraham to kill his son, only to tell him at the last moment that he doesn't have to) and they're then justified post-facto as some kind of a more profound lessons.

And most importantly, he blames you for the problems he created.

(E.g., if you look at all the warfare and injustice in history, it's easy to blame them on some people being evil. But the whole setup set the stage for cycles of overpopulation and needing to kill each other or starve. That's the world he created that produced all that, and trivial changes would have prevented it all. But nah, let's blame the victims instead.)

 

[Blindwatcher]

..

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Last edited by Blindwatcher; Today at 02:37 AM. Reason: Edited to remove pointless comment according to my fiancee.

Don't worry. I couldn't have been any less pointless than the OP or this thread in general.

 

[lionking]

Personally I see Him as proof of Peter's Principle. ("Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.")

Think about it. Brilliant guy programs a whole universe in 7 days. Thereby automatically promoting himself to manager of it all.

And there's where it all starts going south. He shows all the signs of someone who hates that job, doesn't have much patience for it, avoids doing it for as long as possible, and then throws a fit and makes an example of a random bystander when he has no choice but to do his job.

He's the kind of manager who locks himself in his office for year instead of actually managing, then comes out punishing left and right because you didn't do what you should have guessed he wanted you to do. And even then he doesn't come out and say something clear like "guys, we need to make more gizmos than dohickeys in this market", but throws a few vague and contradictory slogans your way and disappears right back in his office before you can ask questions.

He's the kind who plays favourites in a big way. He goes for yes-men, toadies, sycophants and brown-noser in a big way. (Think: praising his Junior is more important than what you actually do the other 99% of the time.) He dishes out rewards or punishments, favour or enmity, based on something that one of your predecessors did and never mind that you didn't even know that guy, much less have anything to do with his decisions. He routinely punishes the wrong people to make some weird point. (See, Numbers: it wasn't the apostates who got that plague, but the ones still faithful to him.) He pulls some cruel practical jokes (see: the whole candid-camera-like episode of asking Abraham to kill his son, only to tell him at the last moment that he doesn't have to) and they're then justified post-facto as some kind of a more profound lessons.

And most importantly, he blames you for the problems he created.

(E.g., if you look at all the warfare and injustice in history, it's easy to blame them on some people being evil. But the whole setup set the stage for cycles of overpopulation and needing to kill each other or starve. That's the world he created that produced all that, and trivial changes would have prevented it all. But nah, let's blame the victims instead.)

Very good and nominated. I haven't seen a reference to the Peter Principle since my time as a management consultant 20+ years ago.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The choice is ours because God gave us free will to choose him or not. I do chose to accept him.

Free will? Riiiight.

If you think about the Biblical premises in real terms instead of the cognitive dissonance quieting Jesus talk, you get:

God wants to be obeyed, but he makes sure that is hard to do, then claims people had the choice.
He wants to be worshiped but he allows the most atrocious things to happen to babies and little kids.
Supposedly by people torturing and killing Jesus (not explained why this is God's son while the rest of God's children are somehow second rate), God forgives the people. What, he couldn't have just said, OK, I forgive you?
But of course none of the pain and suffering changed.
And you supposedly have a free choice, except you get to burn in hell for eternity because God loves you but it's your fault if you don't go along with the program.


Then there are the stories that supposedly teach us lessons like:
Lot pleased God. Lot offered to let a mob rape his virgin teenage daughters. Later, Lot had sex with his daughters and blamed them, (the wife was conveniently done away with by God).


That's one sick religion if you ask me.

 

[kurious_kathy]

"All fanaticism is a strategy to prevent doubt from becoming conscious".

Father Harry Williams, 'The Pearl of Great Price'. A wonderful Christian writer. You should try reading him sometime, Kathy.

Is that a Mormon book or Jehovah's Witness book? I know alot about Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses to know they are certainly not based on truth. Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian denominations as they claim, they are cults. Why would I even want to read that when I know it's full of false teachings other than to point out what they are?