Neon Genesis Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Christians often praise Jesus for being perfect and free of any sin and use this to prove why we should follow him, but the more I think about it, the more imperfection I see in Jesus, and the more it's obvious that he isn't even a "good prophet", let alone sinless, but is really a total asshole and hypocrite. For instance, in Matthew 5:18, Jesus upholds the Old Haw until heaven and Earth pass away, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." But there are many instances throughout the NT where Jesus not only willfully breaks the old law, but even encourages others to do the same, such as working on the Sabbath, and defying OT laws regarding divorce and making oaths. Jesus also broke the OT commandment of thou shalt not steal by stealing donkeys. Christians will try to rationalize these verses by saying that Jesus didn't steal, he "borrowed" the donkeys, but as far as I'm aware, nowhere in the verses does it say they willfully gave their donkeys up, it doesn't even say they returned the donkeys to their owners, and it doesn't say that Jesus asked for permission to use the donkeys, either. All Jesus says is in Matthew 21:3, "And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.†The closest to borrowing in those verses is the last part where they say "he will send them" but it doesn't say anything about sending them willfully. But there are other verses where Jesus shows little concern for the poor unless it's to suit his own motivations as well. In John 12:4-7, it says, "But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?†6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. 7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; she has kept[c] this for the day of My burial. 8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.†Verse 6 claims Judas didn't really care about the poor but wanted the money for his own selfish motivations, as if this somehow is to justify Jesus' reaction, but nowhere in verses 7-8 does Jesus rebuke Judas for his thievery. Instead his justification for not selling the oil for money to give to the poor is that he wants the oil to show off his own greatness. And I think it's hypocritical for Jesus to say that they won't always have him with them but they won't always have the poor when Jesus is fucking immortal and can just resurrect himself if he dies (which he does anyway, contradicting this verse in the process), but I'd love for Jesus to go tell that to the face of some poor person starving to death on the street that they'll always be around to get money from someone else. Jesus also not only endorsed slavery, but he even praised it. In Luke 7, a centurion sends his slave to Jesus to ask him to come heal him. Rather than rebuke the centurion's for his immoral act of slavery, which even 99% of all modern Christians agree is immoral, he praised slavery and suggested that we should all be like that slave. Verse 9, "Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith." Of course, Christians will try to justify this by saying that it's not a slave, it's a "servant", but if it's clearly supposed to be a servant why do some English translations translate it as slave and others as servant? Doesn't God care enough to use his divine powers to inspire biblical translators to make sure they got it right so that people won't be lead astray by inaccurate translations? Christians will praise Jesus for being loving and forgiving, but in Luke 19:27, he commands his followers to kill all those who do not worship him, "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.’†Christians will try to rationalize this verse by saying that isn't supposed to be Jesus, it's a character within a parable. While it may be a character within a parable, Jesus told parables as metaphors, so if this is a metaphor, isn't the nobleman clearly representing Jesus? Christians have no problems accepting that Jesus will slay all nonbelievers during the end times, but suddenly it's hearsay for Jesus to actually command this before the end times happen. But they have no problem with God slaughtering the other foreign nations in the OT yet for some reason it's just inconceivable for Jesus to do the same even though Jesus is supposedly God in the flesh. Speaking of being God in the flesh, for someone who claims to believe in being humble, Jesus sure was rather arrogant when you stop and think about it. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus says, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." If Jesus is God in the human flesh, isn't Jesus here bragging about how perfect he is? And isn't bragging about his perfection completely contradicting Jesusl teachings about being humble and about how if we wish to be the greatest in heaven we must be the least and all that? I used to think Jesus was perfect too, but the more I read about these verses, the more I think Jesus was just as sinful and flawed as we mere mortals are. And I don't understand why Christian continue to ignore these verses and insist that Jesus was sinless when he's probably one of the most flawed characters in the NT. Are we reading different bibles here or something or do Christians never actually read what the bible says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Hi Neon I hope you are doing well, havent talked to you lately. Perfect is a very interesting word to think about. Is it flawless or pefectly fit for its use and could something even be perfectly flawed? Ive thought on this many times...this word and how many ways it can be defined. What do you mean by perfect in your minds eye as to Jesus? If you are saying he didnt keep the law perfectly then are you saying the law was perfect? Or was it perfectly suited for what it was intended for and could it be perfectly broken? Lots of questions that come to mind lol sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Hi MadameM I have had a time with that too and talked about it with others and one of the things that was said to me was that little dogs were seen as worshipful to their masters. And that there is a word for worship that actually means to lick like a dog and that it wasnt an insult used in that context. However, honestly, it bothers me no matter what the explanations would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOkkata Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 It's kind of a moot point anyway. Christians fall into two basic categories. People who believe Jesus was the perfect human being because he was infallible and awesome beyond questioning, and people who believe Jesus was the perfect human being because he was just the right amount of 'human' or 'imperfect' to create the perfect mixture for either bunt cakes, or some sort of mystical key, that will let you through a magic gate, guarded by some old dude with a book. As if you couldn't take that guy anyway. Oh, and not till after you're dead, and you have to be careful, or you might lose your key and have to make another. Oh, and it might take a while. Best not lose it at all, after all, if something happens while you're 'between keys, you're just out of luck, and you'll have to burn forever. There is a third group, but the people who just want to write Jesus Self Insertion Slash fanfiction are a different issue. It would be awesome if there was an orgy with the crew of their favorite Star Trek series involved at the climax. Too bad they'll burn in hell if they ever do it They have to start getting ready to preach the mass again in a few minutes anyway. Maybe have a look at that Billy, who was growing up to be -quite- the eleven year old soldier of Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 Hi Neon I hope you are doing well, havent talked to you lately. Perfect is a very interesting word to think about. Is it flawless or pefectly fit for its use and could something even be perfectly flawed? Ive thought on this many times...this word and how many ways it can be defined. What do you mean by perfect in your minds eye as to Jesus? If you are saying he didnt keep the law perfectly then are you saying the law was perfect? Or was it perfectly suited for what it was intended for and could it be perfectly broken? Lots of questions that come to mind lol sojourner Hey, Soj, I hope you're doing well, too. I think that, within the context of Christianity and Jesus, perfection is without sin or error. It's like the lyrics to that song I sang as a Christian at church, Are You Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb, "Are you washed in the blood, in the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb? Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?" While I can see your point about the definition of perfection, I think in the case of Jesus and Christianity, the phrase "perfectly imperfect" seems like an oxymoron to me and render the word perfect as useless. After all, if Jesus can be "perfectly imperfect," then couldn't Christians just as easily say that they are perfectly imperfect too to justify any of their actions they commit? Though, I think you bring up a good point that perfection is entirely subjective, but if Christians can subjectively claim that Jesus is perfection, then couldn't non-Christians also subjectively claim he wasn't perfect? At the very least it just goes to show how without any evidence that someone's interpretation of the scripture is correct, anyone can easily twist the scriptures around and make Jesus into whatever they see him as. Fundies can take Jesus' verses to prove that he's pro-life and against homosexuals, gays can take the verses and twist it around to show that Jesus supports homosexuality, blacks can take Jesus' verses and twist them around to show that Jesus is anti-slavery, feminists could take the verses around and use Jesus to disprove Paul's sexism, etc. It's like how you can read the horoscopes and because it's so vague in its meaning, you can twist whatever the horoscopes say to make it look like what they said was right, so Jesus basically becomes whoever you want him to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Okay...let's re-word. We could debate forever the meaning of the word "perfect". It's a highly subjective term anyway. Let's look at the biblical jesus character another way. He disobeys his parents as a child. Parents cannot travel for a whole day with the belief their child is with them, and be frightened and surprised at this not being the case without disobedience taking place on the part of the child. And dismissing their concerns upon finding him by saying "of course I would be in my real father's house", is disrespectful and is a denial of their authority over him, despite the fact that "real" daddy HAS given these people authority over him by allowing him to be born to them as custodians of his welfare. Childhood disobedience is to be expected of course, so let's move on to the type of adult he turns out to be. He disses his mother. She and her sons go to visit him, and he disses them. He get's pissed at trees. One tree doesn't have fruit on it (out of season) and he makes sure no child or creature can ever enjoy any fruit from the tree, season or not, ever again out of pure spite. He steals donkeys and justifies it with "greater good" language as mentioned prior. He throws a fit at the temple, abusing the money changers and merchants instead of taking his issue to the priests really responsible. He marks a man to be a scapegoat for the whole reason he came to earth in the first place. If the whole point of his coming was to die for salvation, then Judas was merely a pawn in a greater game, no less than Mary. But instead of being celebrated for helping fulfill the purpose, he gets the villan treatment. Jesus doesn't prevent this, he just hands him a piece of bread, marking him as candidate for Satanic possession. Jesus. We have two types of jesus. We have Orator Jesus, and we have Actions Jesus. Orator Jesus said many things both insightful and cruel. Or...maybe he did. It is now questioned how much of the oratory attributed to jesus may actually have been said by such a character. As for action jesus.....would you want to be friends with this person based not on what they said, but on their actions? I sure wouldn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOkkata Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Okay...let's re-word. We could debate forever the meaning of the word "perfect". It's a highly subjective term anyway. Let's look at the biblical jesus character another way. He disobeys his parents as a child. Parents cannot travel for a whole day with the belief their child is with them, and be frightened and surprised at this not being the case without disobedience taking place on the part of the child. And dismissing their concerns upon finding him by saying "of course I would be in my real father's house", is disrespectful and is a denial of their authority over him, despite the fact that "real" daddy HAS given these people authority over him by allowing him to be born to them as custodians of his welfare. Childhood disobedience is to be expected of course, so let's move on to the type of adult he turns out to be. He disses his mother. She and her sons go to visit him, and he disses them. He get's pissed at trees. One tree doesn't have fruit on it (out of season) and he makes sure no child or creature can ever enjoy any fruit from the tree, season or not, ever again out of pure spite. He steals donkeys and justifies it with "greater good" language as mentioned prior. He throws a fit at the temple, abusing the money changers and merchants instead of taking his issue to the priests really responsible. He marks a man to be a scapegoat for the whole reason he came to earth in the first place. If the whole point of his coming was to die for salvation, then Judas was merely a pawn in a greater game, no less than Mary. But instead of being celebrated for helping fulfill the purpose, he gets the villan treatment. Jesus doesn't prevent this, he just hands him a piece of bread, marking him as candidate for Satanic possession. Jesus. We have two types of jesus. We have Orator Jesus, and we have Actions Jesus. Orator Jesus said many things both insightful and cruel. Or...maybe he did. It is now questioned how much of the oratory attributed to jesus may actually have been said by such a character. As for action jesus.....would you want to be friends with this person based not on what they said, but on their actions? I sure wouldn't Wow. I can't not bring this up now: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Hi again Neon I understand where you are coming from and thought that was it. Mainly I just missed talking to you so thought to respond although I dont really have anything much to add Speaking for me I was just musing on perfect as you used that word and it reminded me of how much I meditated on that word before. I think context is very important and like was pointed out its very subjective. I avoid the topic of Jesus pretty much. I guess its very personal to me right now and so I rarely chime in at all when he is a topic. Perhaps someday soon I will have finish wrestling with this and have more to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted April 3, 2008 Super Moderator Share Posted April 3, 2008 Neon said it well. I'm more blunt. The Bible is bullshit, why waste time trying to make sense out of nonsense? - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Hi MadameM I have had a time with that too and talked about it with others and one of the things that was said to me was that little dogs were seen as worshipful to their masters. And that there is a word for worship that actually means to lick like a dog and that it wasnt an insult used in that context. However, honestly, it bothers me no matter what the explanations would be. The thing that is making you uncomfortable is summed up in the phrase 'back flipping semantic bullshittery' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Wow. I can't not bring this up now: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/jesus Oh that is a good funny. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Ah Jesus... is it any wonder his followers act all bi-polar, dysfunctional & chaotically when he does the same? In truth, hell, most of the Christians are actually doing a good job behaving just like Jesus - screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Jesus really didn't like family ties too much. Someone mentioned it around here somewhere, but that little episode about telling a grieving man about to bury his father "Let the dead bury the dead" was just fucking rude. "Screw your dead daddy, my preaching is more important, come listen to my speeches." The christian-ese spin doctoring that goes on to justify this is of course, following he teachings of jesus taking precedent over worldly things. You know if you love your family more than an invisible sky being and his Superson, you are being a selfish little satan worshipper. Yeah. You are. You know you are. Better hope they forgive you for having the audacity to love anyone but them. Better hope they don't throw you in hell for it. Bitch. I don't go for it. Christians talk real big about how much love god supposedly has for us, and burning people alive, turning them to salt pillars, and making their lives and bodies the playing field for supernatural betting a la Job, is this beings way of expressing that love. The christian god is a jealous god you say? Now that I believe. It's easy to be jealous when someone has something you don't, and the human capacity for love is definitely beyond the capability of this god (as proven by example). So no wonder it's jealous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthOkkata Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 It's worth noting that the very passages brought up here, were part of the foundation of the moral superiority of Arian supremacy. You know, the fun little groups Nazi's and KKK turned out to be. Same stuff was used to defend that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Hi MadameM I have had a time with that too and talked about it with others and one of the things that was said to me was that little dogs were seen as worshipful to their masters. And that there is a word for worship that actually means to lick like a dog and that it wasnt an insult used in that context. However, honestly, it bothers me no matter what the explanations would be. I quoted the NKJV. The NIV actually says, "He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Which does imply servanthood or at least a status of lesser class. Which means that Jesus was saying the the "gentiles" were less than or subservient to the "chosen people". You really can't get around the fact that all evidence in the bible states that god did not love the world, but he loved a certain group of people and that is it. I don't care what the religion turned into. In the NT, there was some debate about even going to the gentiles. I think it was mostly Paul who did that, and we all know that he wasn't one of the real disciples. On the other hand the NIV version may mean that Jesus was simply acknowledging the status that the Canaanites or Samiritans (forgotten which one she was) had in the eyes of the Israelites. It still doesn't excuse Jesus for not helping someone in need though. "I was only sent to the sheep of Israel" - what an arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 ...For instance, in Matthew 5:18, Jesus upholds the Old Haw until heaven and Earth pass away, "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." But there are many instances throughout the NT where Jesus not only willfully breaks the old law, but even encourages others to do the same, such as working on the Sabbath, and defying OT laws regarding divorce and making oaths. Jesus also broke the OT commandment of thou shalt not steal by stealing donkeys. ... This portion of Matthew Jesus speaks more tongue-in-cheek than by ordering the law will not pass away. The Law of Moses was the focal point of their faith and would not change just because someone wants social reform. Jesus was pointing out that the law will always be around, unyielding and unchangeable. Another verse in which Jesus tries a one-liner is when he is on trial before Pilate. Pilate says, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' Jesus replied, 'Did you figure that out by yourself or did someone help you?' (John 18:33-34) My all-time favorite joke in the babble is the story of the talking snake in the garden of eden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts