Rejecting John 3:16

[webmdave]

By Astreja

 

So, let me get this straight: A god sacrifices its only son, purportedly so that it (an ultra-powerful god) will be in a position to forgive us (comparatively powerless humans) for something called "sin".

 

I don't think so.

 

I really and truly don't think so.

 

Imagine for a moment that you've put a lot of work into your yard, and it looks fabulous.

 

You put up a sign that says "Keep Off the Grass".

 

Along come a couple of people who don't know how to read. They not only walk across your lawn, but sample a raspberry or two off the bush on the north side of the walk.

 

You get annoyed.

 

No; you get angry.

 

So psychotically angry, in fact, that you lock the great-great-great-grandkids of the trespassing raspberry thieves in your basement, turn on the garden hose, and drown them all. (All, that is, except for a dozen or so kids who were out at the lake that afternoon.)

 

The survivors go on to raise families, and many generations later you send your son to chat with them. As you're omniscient, it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise when your kidlet gets nailed to a tree.

 

(Although the dead fruit tree, the herd of pigs rotting in a culvert, the fist fight at the ATM, that police report about a couple of stolen motorcycles and rumours about your son calling some woman a bitch might also have given you a bit of a heads-up...)

 

This time, instead of killing the lot of them, you say that you "forgive" them.

 

But only till next week, when you intend to send death, disease, pestilence, famine, war, lambs and dragons and Beasts (oh my!) to liven things up in the neighbourhood.

 

Literalist Christians, give me a break. The key stories in your mythology are abysmally, terminally stupid. You should be ashamed of yourselves for believing such tripe, and deeply ashamed if you teach these stories to your kids as "The Truth."

 

Metaphor-friendly Christians, you aren't off the hook either. You have yet to explain how an all-powerful god could possibly have been injured by humanity acquiring any amount of knowledge, with or without the god's permission.

 

For that matter, you can start by explaining why an all-powerful, omniscient god would bother to put two rather useful trees into a garden, yet become upset when one of them gets used by people who didn't yet possess the knowledge to know they were doing something wrong.

 

And then you can try to explain how a blood sacrifice makes everything hunky-dory again, but only if we think blood sacrifice is a good thing and agree to play along with this nasty psychotic deity and its creepy obsessions.

 

End of rant. Discuss.

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2008/01...g-john-316.html

[Grandpa Harley]

Sonia1253211375d31dey7 is needed here... she has ALL the answers...

[Deva]

As you're omniscient, it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise when your kidlet gets nailed to a tree.

 

What's worse is it was no surprise when the people first trespassed and ate the raspberrys...

[Tabula Rasa]

Very good summarization of what makes christianity completely unreasonable. Well said!

[MathGeek]

Reminds me of some of the ex-Christian testimonials I've read. Sad behavior actually, loosing it on a child over raspberries.

[Grandpa Harley]

but it was GAWD'S rules!

[MathGeek]

but it was GAWD'S rules!

 

Then Yahweh needs a swift kick in the nuts, in my not-so-humble opinion.

[Grandpa Harley]

Indeed... I owe him a sound thrashing...

[SWIM]

Yup, and they ALWAYS omit the "rest" of the story (to quote Paul Harvey).

 

3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

 

They ALWAYS hold up 3:16 signs, 3:16 bumper stickers, etc etc, but no no, if *YOU* discuss things with them (kratos comes to mind) they cry "out of context! out of context!".

 

So, if we take their all time favorite, most quoted verse, and ADD the following four verses, you see just how conditional 3:16 *really* is.

 

3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

But, by conviently leaving off the others, they skip the "he that believeth not is condemned already," Irregardless of *if* they even heard of jeebus to begin with...

 

Well, xtians. now its OUR TURN to cry "out of context!".

 

/rant continuation

[hereticzero]

I've never really figured out the whys to everything either, especially how god can get really pissy over eating a piece of fruit and turn a deaf ear to his only son on the cross. Some gardeners are just mean when it comes to sharing. I think god over reacted on the fruit thing. I mean the girl was only a few hours old and it was her first mistake, too. And, god made talking snakes so why was it such a surprise for a talking snake to offer her something. The bible makes the story sound like talking animals was an everyday occurance, so why wouldn't a young girl trust one of god's creations? The snake even told her that god would not get angry. From this bullshit story about a little girl being given a magical fruit from a talking snake, we arrive at the story of Jesus Christ which is suppose to make up for this character flaw in god. Jesus offers a big 'I'm sorry,' from god and we accept his sacrifice for a mythological story? Bullshit! If Jesus actually lived, he was as delusional as the nut cases running the Jewish religion.

 

If genesis is untrue, then there is absolutely nothing of worth in the story of Jesus Christ.

[MathGeek]

If genesis is untrue, then there is absolutely nothing of worth in the story of Jesus Christ.

 

Correct, I think that basically explains why I distrust creationism and why I distrust Yahweh to start with. I viewed a video one time that basically suggested the Second Creation story was nothing more than a blackmailing power trip. If God really wanted to be fawned over, why subject his most precious creations to such venomous tortures? It boggles the mind, unless it doesn't have context anymore. Hate to say it, but the Bible needs to go.

[Purple]

I did an anology of this myself once, about who is really responcible here.

 

Okay lets say I have two 11 year old kids in my house, my kids, and one day I decide to go out, without them. Leave them home alone, but before I do I take a loaded gun and put it in the middle of the coffee table, right on the middle of the house. Now I tell them do not play with the gun, "If you touch this gun you will DIE!" but I just leave it there, in plain view the safety isn't even on. Then just because I'm in a mood to test my pre-teen twins I don't "just" leave them alone, no I send over their Uncle Snake, now Uncle Snake is pretty much an ass, and I know this. I also know that he'll probably try to talk the kids into playing wiht the gun. So now with this all set up, I leave. Soon after not surprisingly, Uncle Snake gets one kids alone and starts in with "Mom is just being a big meanie, and guns are fun, and hey Mom won't realy get mad." Uncle Snake picks up the gun and says, "See I'm not dead, here go ahead, touch it." The lone kid does, and guess what he doesn't die. Goes adn tells his twin and the kids decide to check it out. Having no experience with guns one kid points it at their twin, bang! kills him, he looks at Uncle Snake who shrugs and quickly exits. The left kid looks down the barrel of the gun and pulls again, killing himself.

 

Now, I ask you, if a parent did this, who would ANY court hold responcible??? The two dead kids, who knew NOTHING about guns? Or one of the two adults, most likely the parent?

[bush country]

The whole Original Sin area is one which I wish more xians would really think about. If there is no literal Adam and Eve and the talking snake, then there is no need for the supposed sacrifice on the cross by JC. I know many xians that understand that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, that believe evolution is the best explanation for how we got here, yet also believe in Original Sin and that whole load of crap about 'through one man sin entered the world'. I work in the oil & gas industry and in our area there is production out of Devonian rock, which means the rock is around 400 million years old. In our business there are geologists, who's entire education and professional life rely on an understanding of the earth, how it was formed, and how OLD it is, yet have no problem with a literal Adam & Eve. WTF?

[kcinbama]

My interpretation of John 3:16 reads something like:

 

For a supernatural being so loved all humans, past, present, and future;

that He gave, for human sacrifice, and only for a 3 day period, His only begotten son;

that whosoever does not believe in Him, regardless of His refusal to provide empirical evidence of His existence, not for anything humans have done, but, for the crime of being "born" into sin;

not simply be killed, but to be subject to excruciating physical pain continuing without interruption forever. (KC version)

 

After I thought about my interpretation of this verse long enough, it was finally what turned me into an ex-christian. This is obviously NOT a good god, and any god that is not good, is not worthy of my worship.

[Deva]

My interpretation of John 3:16 reads something like:

 

For a supernatural being so loved all humans, past, present, and future;

that He gave, for human sacrifice, and only for a 3 day period, His only begotten son;

that whosoever does not believe in Him, regardless of His refusal to provide empirical evidence of His existence, not for anything humans have done, but, for the crime of being "born" into sin;

not simply be killed, but to be subject to excruciating physical pain continuing without interruption forever. (KC version)

 

After I thought about my interpretation of this verse long enough, it was finally what turned me into an ex-christian. This is obviously NOT a good god, and any god that is not good, is not worthy of my worship.

 

 

Hey Kcinbama, I like your rewording of John 3:16. What a lousy Bible verse. It sounds good, taken without any thought and ignoring its context, but you have supplied this and exposed its real meaning. It deserves all the criticism we can heap upon it!!

 

Welcome to the forums!

[MathGeek]

The whole Original Sin area is one which I wish more xians would really think about. If there is no literal Adam and Eve and the talking snake, then there is no need for the supposed sacrifice on the cross by JC. I know many xians that understand that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, that believe evolution is the best explanation for how we got here, yet also believe in Original Sin and that whole load of crap about 'through one man sin entered the world'. I work in the oil & gas industry and in our area there is production out of Devonian rock, which means the rock is around 400 million years old. In our business there are geologists, who's entire education and professional life rely on an understanding of the earth, how it was formed, and how OLD it is, yet have no problem with a literal Adam & Eve. WTF?

 

Man, you got to read Ken Ham's "The New Answers Book" for the answer to that argument...

 

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth--it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of His "very good" creation?

 

Um, how messed up is that?