151. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30354 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 7:42 pm

fortytwo wrote:

God didn't 'demand' the blood of his own son - the Bible makes it clear that Jesus chose to undergo the crucifixion

There is only ONE god, remember? Think about that for a minute: Is God schizo? Having conversations between his split personalities? Has he compartmentalized his "brain" so that "Jesus" doesn't know daddy-god's plan and the Jesus-god has a will independant of daddy-god -- but wait! there' s only ONE god!! ...oh, that's ok, that's been sorted.....some repressed gays wearing frocks and funny hats sat around a table at the Council of Nicia and decided that 3x1=3....um, sorry...make that ONE!!! Sorry, I can't SHRINK my brain to the point where I can walk around thinking this all makes "perfect sense".

fortytwo also wrote:

it is us that has put the earth in this state in the end.

Is everything that is bad in the world really OUR fault? Surely the dude who created the whole world should at least accept some of the blame. I mean, was the Tsanami our fault? There is a type of parasite that eats human brain tissue AND NOTHING ELSE, he designed the parasite to eat human brains. It is a cruel world based on survival of the fittest, not the best possible world (if you believe in Heaven that is....in which case you admit that God is capable of creating a perfect world NOT based on survival of the fittest, which leads us to the question of why then didn't he just create "Heaven" to begin with?)

It seems to me that all that is wrong with the world is not entirely our fault, but the creator takes none of the blame.

It would be different if Jesus on the Cross was an admission of responsibility, and god said "Yeah, I stuffed up TOO...I shouldn't have made that parasite that can only survive by EATING PEOPLE'S BRAINS...so here I am to take my punishment."

No. He could never admit to a MISTAKE. He's PERFECT, remember? The obvious fact is that the world that he "created" IS NOT "perfect" (Exhibit A, your honor: PARASITE THAT EATS HUMAN BRAIN TISSUE, "designed" by JESUS). How do we account for the imperfection if we live in a "moral universe" where something or someone must be held accountable? From the beginning, Christians coped with this cognitive dissonance BY BLAMING THEMSELVES.

So, just so you humans don't misunderstand Lordy J, his sufferring on the cross is not in any way an admission of guilt, ok? (Must have been advised by lawyers, covering his holy arse). It is all YOUR fault, but He is so magnanimous and such a great guy that He's going to cop the rap, ok? Now don't you feel some cosmic existential guilt coming on? Good, that's the way it works. When you see some imperfection in the world, do you get some vague sense that YOU are somehow to blame, in some existential way that you can't quite put your finger on? Good, getting warmer....now when the PARASITES "DESIGNED" TO EAT HUMAN BRAINS are "rightly" seen as being YOUR fault (through Original Sin: Man turned away from God and so brought "evil" into the "perfect" world, and so we are all collectively responsible), then you can prostrate yourself before God and THANK him for FORGIVING you for your role in bringing "death" into this world.

There are many fundies, especially Catholic fundies, who think this way. The sophisticated Christians, the Theologians, dress it all up to the point where it is unrecognizable (it would have to be, for how can a "sophisticated" person of intelligence believe such insanity?) and make it respectable for the average fundy to think this way. But when you strip it away, this is the take-home message for Mr. & Mrs. Average Fundy. Theologians dress it up in a cheap tuxedo, just as Intelligent Design dresses up Creationism to look like science. (As another writer once quipped, very aptly).

In this way, JESUS is the real parasite slowly eating your brains, in the sense that you are being robbed of your capacity to think logically.

152. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30233 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 9:27 am

The doctrine of the Atonement, I think, has its roots in the famous story in the bible where God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, and then calls it off at the last minute. It is seen by may Christians as a preparatory event alluding to why Yahweh will do with his own son in the New Testament.

This is another disgraceful teaching which sent me running for the door and out of the fundy church I grew up in.

Let's ask ourselves, what is the lesson here? What is the only lesson you can draw from this dispicable yet famous biblical story? God is well pleased with Abraham for being WILLING to do the most heineous act imaginable. Abe holds the knife aloft and then Lordy calls the whole thing off. He REWARDS Abraham by telling him "beause you were willing to do this for Me, I will make you the father of a great nation." The lesson is that you obey the Totalitarian Voice in the Sky and abrogate yourself of all moral culpability. No matter how evil the act is, it is ok if it is an order from on high. God's Command = Good, event if it is the most straighforwardly evil act imaginable. Big Brother will work out what is "good" and what is "bad" and he will do all the thinking for you, you just have to obey. That is the Doublethink of the Lord.

"I was only following orders." --- wasn't that the Adolf Eichmann defence? He made that statement at his trial in Israel (I think). How ironic that the Nazis took a lesson from a famous Jewish story to try to justify their attempted annihilation of the Jews.

Now, in the New Testament, God the Father ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH WITH IT!!!

The other antecedent in O.T. scripture which really paves the way for this Atonement idea is (from memory) Exodus chapter 12. An equally famous story which most people who happen to read this will easily recall. God decides to "harden Pharoah's heart" so he can KILL THE FIRST BORN of every household in Egypt. (Note how God "hardens his heart" -- he does away with Free Will in order to do some good old fashioned baby-killing!). Yahweh (and the bible uses the name YHWH -- same word for god as used throughout the bible, no "hired killers" from the underworld here, god gets his hands dirty (bloody) Himself!!) goes to each house and KILLS THE FIRST BORN MALE of every household. He is in such a blood-frenzy that he even kills the first born sheep or goats!! Anything that is MALE and FIRST BORN gets THE CHOP!!!!

This essentially makes God a SERIAL KILLING CHILD MURDERER. Remember, folks, there is only ONE god, and Jesus was "One with the Father" since the "beginning"....this puts a whole new slant on that touching little scene in the Gospels where the meek and mild Jesus says "Suffer the little children to come unto me." SUFFER being the operative word in Exodus ch.12!!! He came unto THEM and they sure SUFFERED!

But Jesus/Yahweh "passed over" the Jewish houses which had sacrificed a lamb and smeared blood on their doors (I'm not making this stuff up!), and hence that is the origin of the Passover Festival.

It is not a coincidence that the Crucifixion occurred during the Passover Festival, and that Jesus in the Passion is referred to as "the lamb of god". He is the propitiary sacrifice. God was going to kill their sons, but he refrained because they killed a lamb. Now God is killing his own Son so everyone can be forgiven for ALL TIME and no one has to sacrifice any more lambs from now on ("YAY for YAHWEH!!! Woopsey-doo!). The Jews don't accept this and so keep sacrifices coming to this day....this is the logic of the crucifixion and its atonement significance as far as Christians "understand" it. (As I mentioned in a previous post, you can't really "understand" anything if it doesn't make sense, let alone believe the nonsensical propostion).

So, mix up the Abe/Isaac story with the Passover story add a few obscure bogus ramblings from Isaiah about a "suffering servant who bore our iniquities", and you get the recipe for - hey presto - the Atonement.

Jesus told his followers that he would rule, and that he would never die...then suddenly his lackeys are faced with the stark fact that their hero has just kicked the bucket. How do they turn such ignominy into a "triumph"? They go searching through ancient scriptures trying to make sense of it all and this is what they came up with.

You also have to consider the rival pagan cults which were contemporaneous to and rival to the Jesus movement. The cult of Mithras, for example, where, in order to be forgiven of sins, the person stands under the bull and they cut the bull and are washed with his blood (the bull was on a contraption especially designed, in case you're wondering why the bull wouldn't have fallen on the person and killed them!). So the "washing in the blood" thing was quite popular at the time.

I think these things go some way to help explain the origins of this bizarre doctrine which is FRONT AND CENTRAL and AT THE HEART of Christianity. I think it is important that if one wishes to give Christianity a fatal blow that one should learn to strike it at it's heart (after all, that's where the blood is, eh?)

After you accept this crazy idea, then you will think it is absolutely "normal" to symbolically drink his blood and eat his flesh in the holy sacrament of communion!

This is no cut-and-paste job here, by the way (I'm sure you can tell, typos in there somewhere, I'm sure!). I am flying by the seat of my pants going by what I have read. I hope it helps some way, to someone out there. It is 2:30a.m. in Australia and way past my bed time, I'd better sign off and stop talking to myself (it has been therapeutic anyway!! lol) Night all, and thanks for allowing me the opportunity to have my late-night rant!!!

153. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30232 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 9:26 am

Sorry Yorker, I was just responding to your point in isolation. If I had read your other posts I would have been able to put you in context.

154. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30219 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 8:19 am

"Imagine a wealthy and selfless replacement debtor (RD)..."

RD??? I thought you were talking about Richard Dawkins there for a minute!! lol

155. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30199 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 8:01 am

Comment #30182 by Yorker:

So I agree with Dawkins point of view here; the current upsurge in religiosity is merely a hiccup, a positive blip in the otherwise increasingly negative slope of its curve towards oblivion.


Yorker, that is a very optimistic view. Sam Harris has described our current state of affairs as an "intellectual and moral emergency" and Dawkins concurs. Harris has gone so far as to say that it is not within the realms of impossibility that we could "lose it all," (I think they may have even been his exact words)....ie. a New Dark Age....or at least that is the possibility in the USA with the neocons and the dominionist agenda. The assault against science continues unabated. You can't knock down the fundies. It doesn't matter how badly they lose the argument (eg. the Dover trial re: Intelligent Design) they will keep coming back relentlessly (ID has now evolved into "Explore Evolution" -- not even "Teach the Controversy" anymore -- they are so desceptive they will write text books with the innocuous title as the above, but only as another "Trojan Horse" to slip in the same old creationist canards, where their "evolution" is another straw man characature...the strategy is to get kids to doubt evolution...then the church can do the rest, etc. etc.....they are like THE ZOMBIES from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD....except it is NIGHT OF THE LIVING FUNDIES!!!) Night alright. A new Dark Age snuffing out the Enlightenment.

You would think that religion would, as you say, die out eventually (and for the reasons you just gave). As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is simple if you just walk away, like I did when I was 18...the logic takes care of itself and you lose your beliefs. However, religion occurs in the context of society, and when a CROWD gets together and constantly reinforces their own beliefs and insulates itself from critical thinking, it will persist as long as those walls are not broken down.

So it won't happen without a fight. Dawkins and Harris and Dennet have released the first salvo (s?) and if the walls don't come down (Joshua, where are you with your logical trumpet!) it won't die out. As I said, they are OUTBREEDING US and, at least in America, slowly but surely creeping into government, Night of the Living Fundies-style, home-schooled by intelligent design to systematically dismantle the enlightenment (at taxpayer's expense!!). I repeat, to reiterate Sam Harris, we could lose the fight, everything is at stake. If it is not fought HEAD ON, it will NOT die out.....WE WILL!!!

I'm sounding almost as crazy as those end-time rapture wingnuts, but it really is end-time for the enlightenment, for the progress of science (at least in he USA), if we don't fight the fundies. The wingnuts will take over because Joe Schlub is opiated on unreality TV and Britney Spears, etc. They will TAKE OVER if we don't fight them, it WON'T DIE ON IT'S OWN. If they succeed, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, the wingnuts will prove they are right: "See? We told you it was the end times!! General, activate Star Wars Defence Shield and commence Armageddon, so the Jesus may return!"

To sum up, the "hiccup" is going to be a prolonged proverbial "spew" for civilization if we don't get cracking!!

Sam Harris is alarmist about it, and so is Dawkins. They are fighting because they know what it at stake. The appeasers with their Templeton Prizes are the enablers.

156. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30180 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 6:52 am

I often visit the Pandas thumb website (excellent) and some of the regulars there often mention that they post on the ID websites and it always gets taken off. I think one of the Pandas posts on the Dumbski blog site (sorry: Dembski) always gets deleted. Or else they keep your post, create a straw man out of it so they can pull you to pieces and then delete your responses. Not worth the grief....but that is why I admire someone like Richard...he's put his views out there and they are making a straw man of him every day as we speak. Just earlier today on ABC radio (Australia) I heard the latest winner of the Templeton Prize slagging off on Dawkins, trying to equate Dawkins' arguments with the Postmodernists -- and you know how much our Dawky HATES that post-modernist crowd (don't ask me how he tries to do it!) That guy must be just trying to hurt Richard's feelings....and getting paid a million bucks (Templeton money) in the process!!

157. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30178 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 6:38 am

Logicel wrote:
The problem I see is that your hard work could be deleted by a Fundy control-freak monitor.

Logicel, you are right. If I posted that at a fundy website it would be deleted by an administrator before you can say "Jumping Jesus"! I went to the bother of writing and posting here because at least I can be confident that it won't be deleted (Josh is God here at RicharDawkins.net...but a Benevolent One...don't know the guy but he does a good job -- unlike that OTHER certain Supreme Being who sits on his holy hands all through Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami, lol).

I guess a post like my previous one would sit on the fundy forum for a while before the dimwits take it down, then again, on some sites the posts need to be "vetted" before they even appear -- in which case, I wouldn't have a hope in hell.

158. Jesus and Mo: Dummy

Comment #30175 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 6:20 am

Yeah, looks like a dildo to me also. It sort of distracts from the overall effect of the rest of the cartoon. I must check this Jesus and Mo site!! I am familiar with the Celestial Teapot, but this one looks just as good, if not better.

159. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30169 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 6:07 am

Sorry again for bringing up the Virgin Birth. We need a separate thread dedicated to that absurdity. One absurdity at a time, folks!

Yes, back to the Atonement.

What I would say to your average fundy when he/she starts telling you that "Jesus died for your sins," and how "by his stripes we are healed". "...by his stripes.." STRIPES!! I heard that a lot when I was growing up. For the benefit of anybody who may not know, they are referring to the bloody stripes on his back from the whip lashes, etc. (Mel Gibson paints the picture for you in his theological snuff movie) -- but I digress....

I would say to the fundy: "What if your little child (let's say they have a child, they usually do -- THEY ARE OUTBREEDING US!!!) did something wrong and asked to be forgiven? You either forgive them or you don't, right? As a Christian, you must forgive. But what you DON'T do is say "Gee, little Jimmy, I'd LIKE to forgive you but someone has to PAY for your sins. I can't just forgive you because justice must be done....I tell you what, little Jimmy, son, I love you so much that, even though you DESERVE to be PUNISHED, I'm going to let you off the hook by getting Bobby, your older brother, to get wacked IN YOUR PLACE. Isn't that nice of Bobby? Now thank me and my son Bobby for doing you such a good turn. I know it doesn't make any sense, I know that making another (innocent) person suffer for the sins of the guilty ISN'T JUSTICE anyway, but if you force yourself to believe this absurdity, I will forgive your sins." Father starts whipping his son: "See Jimmy? See how much I LOVE YOU? By BOBBY'S stripes, YOU are healed of the imperfections of Original Sin. Aren't I GREAT? Don't you just want to WORSHIP me?"

Anything wrong with this picture? We haven't even scratched the surface yet.

160. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30163 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 5:44 am

Logicel wrote:
And when an atheist hammers the point of how absurd these basic beliefs underpinning religious superstitions truly are, we are then told, oh, nobody believes in that nonsense, in a white-bearded guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. No, we believe that belief in belief is good.

Yes, and the most difficult thing is that you can't pin down what it is that they supposedly believe. They are immune from criticism because even THEY, literally, don't know what they are talking about. As you say it's "not an old man in the sky, ha ha" but that is the logical consequence of believing in the virgin birth. God provided the SPERM. (One wonders, were there a hundred million "potential son-of-god" spermatazoa in the holy seminal fluid, with some Homer Simpson-style "Almost Jesuses" swimming the wrong way? Lucky THAT one didn't take.) Believers who read what I just wrote (unfortunately, let's face it, we wouldn't get many on this board), may take offence at what I just wrote, however there is NO REASON why they should. They are simple, sensible questions that need to be asked in order to come to the point where you can define what "Virgin Birth" actually means. And as I said, how can you "believe" in something when you literally don't know what the hell it is, once you start asking basic questions to potentially define this thing that you're being asked to believe in.

It is this notion of "blasphemy" which serves as a mechanism to PREVENT any further critical thought. The believer is "offended" and turns off. It is actually "offensive" (to god?) to actually THINK about such matters.

I am reminded of the recent literary "get together" between McGrath and Dawkins when Richard actually asks him flat out if he believes in the virgin birth. McGrath (from memory) simply answers "yes" and then quickly sidesteps by saying (I'm paraphrasing here) "but it is more important what it REPRESENTS". We can't even get to the point of working out what the Virgin Birth IS, but that's "not important" because what is important is what it REPRESENTS.

I may as well believe in an Invisible Pink Unicorn and not ask too many questions, and believe this vague idea because I LIKE WHAT IT SYMBOLISES for ME in my obscure theology.

Sorry for going on about Virgin Births in this thread. This one is about the Atonement, however they are ALL logically incruitable, so for the sake of this argument they are almost interchangeable. Bottom line is: ABSURDITY.

Remember that terrible long-winded "critique" by Novak that was posted here a few weeks ago (don't read it, your brain will turn to marshmellow)...I am reminded how he tried to turn "mystery" and "absurdity" into some sort of advantage. "The Theology of the Absurd," -- the truly absurd thing is that intelligent people are willing to fool themselves with this sort of thing. Credo absurdum est (forgive spelling, I'm no Latin scholar!)

161. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30155 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 5:09 am

I just visited the site mentioned in the first post in this thread:

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?654

Wow. Finally, after all these years, a FUNDY (alt. spelling "fundie"? Don't know which one is more "fun"!) actually questions the doctrine of the atonement. Calls it "Cosmic Child Abuse" -- I couldn't have put it better myself.

Thoughtful Fundy doesn't last long, though. Soon put back in his place. The guy objecting says we know he is wrong because in verse X Paul says Y, and verse Y in Acts says X etc etc ad infinitum. Banging the poor guys rational argument with a barrage of bible quotes. Then he accuses him of being "highly selective" in his reading of scripture. (Of course, HE'S not selective at all, he doesn't cherry pick, I'm sure he is willing to throw stones at the guy picking p sticks on the Sabbath, etc.)

Finally, a fundy comes out and says something logical (calling the Atonement "cosmic child abuse") and the other fundy says his argument is "logically flawed" --- LOGICALLY flawed!!! It is "logically flawed" because it doesn't align with HIS illogical cherry picking of Holy Scripture. I feel sorry for these people.

162. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30146 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 4:28 am

I was brought up in a fundie church downunder, and from an early age I could see the problems with the doctrine of the atonement. One just has to allow oneself to question the whole shebang for only a moment to realize the absurdity and ,even, the IMMORALITY of the whole thing. This guy has hit the nail (ouch! sorry) on the proverbial head. The idea is central to (especially) fundy-evangelical churches, as it signified the "in" group: "Are you saved by THE BLOOD OF JESUS?" -- "Declare Jesus as your personal LORD AND SAVIOUR" -- etc. All that carrying on about the bloody blood of bloody Jesus!

Even as a kid, you start to ask yourself some basic questions: "Um, ok....what does FORGIVENESS have to do with THE SUFFERRING OF THE INNOCENT? How is one contingent upon the other? Why doesn't He just then FORGIVE US ALREADY!!!" --- You are forced to "believe" something that is morally indefensible and absurd in order to be forgiven...if you DON'T "accept" it, god won't forgive you for your sins.

Finally, how can you "believe" in something when you literally don't know what you are being asked to believe in? By this, I mean the doctrine is incomprehensible to the intellect, so what are you supposed to "believe" in? Some nebulous concept that doesn't stand up to the barest intellectual scruitiny.

Same goes for "believing in" the "Virgin Birth," by the way. ("Um...ok, we know where babies come from now, so we presume Mary provided the EGG, therefore "god" must literally be A BLOKE after all. And so it follows that "He" masturbated in a styrofoam cup in heaven, passed it to Archangel Gabriel and his "turkey baster" syringe, and....oh god, my brain hurts!!

Being asked to "believe" (whatever that means!) in such things made me an atheist by the time I was 18. I wasn't "influenced" by any one, I just worked it out by ALLOWING myself to ask questions and actually THINK through these absurd propositions to their absurd nonsensical "conclusions".