• Gregory
    1.6k


    It's all part of a system that is not spiritually grown-up. Take responsibility for your actions. Dont put it on Jesus. The fact that Christianity makes you nerdy and sensitive such that they get giddy when its disscover something like rock music is not a sin ( "Jesus can rock? COOL!" ) is enough. People obsessed with sin and punishment are like people in trenches: God is obvious to them. It's not to me and Job sucks
  • Gregory
    1.6k
    The world is conscience related. That's why we are here. Atonment does away with conscience and that is why they eat Jesus
  • Gus Lamarch
    348
    Finally, the basic premise of Christianity is that once you sin you owe an infinite debt to God which you can never repay.Gregory

    “There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.” ― St. Augustine

    You are obviously distorting and choosing your words and arguments to make your hypothesis look convincing and Christianity a terrible evil, devil worshipping religion.

    An Observation: It's not working
  • Nils Loc
    736


    Suppose you had to go to a "Christian" church, to be a part of any fold (community) per se. Which denomination would you choose? Suppose you had to be the leader of a new denomination, the Church of Gregory... and you had to convert other Christians who were discouraged with their faith... what would you do?
  • Gregory
    1.6k


    It doesnt matter of its working. Karma gets everyone "I.can't take away my own sin but Jesus can" says the Christian. That's straight up sinful
  • Gregory
    1.6k


    I would follow a Christian church that did not believe Jesus takes your sins, but which believes Jesus gives helping Grace
  • Gregory
    1.6k
    All a person has to do to take away guilt is do a good act equal to the crime committed. The scales balance. If you are incapable of that, all I can say is that the universe is not a theist God so maybe it has mercy in ways we don't know. But I doubt this. Karma seems to be the absolute rule. So do good, sure, but why believe in a God who violates justice in order to save people who Christian say have an infinite debt? You're believing in something obviously wrong in order to save your skin; that's why they call it faith
  • Emma
    2
    Hi there, I am a Philosophy student so bear with me because I am a bit new at this!
    From what I’ve read, it looks like the overall conclusion of your argument in this post is that Christianity is a Satanic religion. First, I would like to address the second paragraph where you seem to conclude that the Christian God is lazy. It seems that the only example of striving you gave is “striving to defeat temptation.” So, if something is striving, then that thing is overcoming a temptation. However, I don’t see how this definition of striving could apply to the Christian God. The Christian God does not face temptation as far as I know. It seems as though the definition of striving you have provided would only apply to imperfect beings who are capable of facing temptations, not to immortal, perfect beings as portrayed in the Christian Bible. Furthermore, I am unfamiliar with the writing you referenced from Nietzsche, but it seems to me like they/you are using “will” and “striving” synonymously. I have no basis to argue against that, however it seems that you add “action” into the mix as being synonymous with those two words as well at the end of the paragraph. I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action, so even if you respond to say that your argument about overcoming temptation applies to the Christian God, it does not follow that the Christian God is “lazy” since striving is certainly no the only action that omits laziness
    Secondly, I would like to address your conclusion that Catholics have a cannibalistic nature. From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being. Even if a Catholic were to genuinely think they were eating the flesh of Jesus Christ, they aren’t actually eating another human being, so they aren’t being cannibalistic. It’s similar to someone stabbing a pillow while thinking it is a person, they aren’t committing murder, they just are under some sort of hallucination that they are. I disagree that the figurative nature of communion doesn’t matter, it is the entire point in my opinion. It is meant to be a symbol of Jesus’s sacrifice, etc. Jesus did say to do this in memory of him, but he didn’t say eat human flesh and be cannibals. So, in my opinion, this portion of your argument is false.
    Third, regarding Christianity being pro-murder, I think this is too strong of a claim to make based on your provided evidence. One reason I believe this is because the two examples you gave were from the Old Testament of the Bible, not the New Testament where Christ actually becomes part of the picture, so at most your examples only provide evidence for Judaism being pro-murder. Now obviously Christians study the Old Testament and most believe in the Ten Commandments outlined in there, however the biggest part of Christianity is Christ himself. Could it not be the case that the God of the Old Testament changed once his son was born or once his son was sacrificed, i.e. changed into a God that no longer commanded murder or genocide? If that’s the case then since Christianity itself did not exist until that point in time and (from what I understand) the Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder.
    Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
    Thanks for your time!
  • 180 Proof
    1.8k
    "... for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

    Wouldn't it be weird if Satanism was really inherent within Christianity?Gregory
    It'd be really weird if it wasn't. The "Christ Cult", canonized and creedally begat down massacred & martyred millennia, is a burned witches' brew of dogmatic

    • inherited guilt
    • vicarious redemption via (symbolically reenacted) human sacrifice
    • self-abnegating masochistic "worship" of misery-torture-execution porn
    • "blood libel" anti-semitism
    • ritual (symbolic) cannibalism & vampirism
    child abuse by "Vicars of Christ" with threats of "hellfire" for little ones, their pets & parents if they resist ecclesiastical "grooming" for molestation, rape or other forms of sacramental sadism
    • missionary demonization of non-christian "heathen savages"
    • etcetera ...


    On the way to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus must've met "Satan" at the crossroads who made him an offer Saul couldn't refuse. The hellenized jewish trickster then became "Paul" and, like Dostoyevsky's "Grand Inquisitor", gained the world by selling untold billions of credulous souls. Ah yes, "Satan" too works in mysterious ways (learned, no doubt, during tenure in the Torah).

    The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding -- at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — The Antichrist (1888)
    (emphasis added)
  • Outlander
    573
    Anything that is powerful is prone to corruption. See above post. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing complicated about it.

    If Group A has power, Group A will be targeted and possibly corrupted. If Group B has power, Group B will be targeted and possibly corrupted. How it always was, how it is now.

    There are specific commandments given, since as it would seem, the 10 Commandments were too much to bear. Those are followed, promises are kept. If not, well, I wouldn't worry about it for too long anyhow.
  • Gregory
    1.6k
    I don’t think you would say that “striving” is the only form of action,Emma

    It is the only form of virtuous act. You can't excuse a being from this by saying he already has it without him doing it.

    From what I understand based on my friends and family who are catholoic and/or have attended Catholic schools, communion is regarded as a metaphorical action, no one is intending to eat the flesh of a human being.Emma

    False. The Council of Trent clearly defined what the Eucharist and Mass are. It's in the Catechism. It's everywhere. They believe they eat Jesus

    he Christian God did not command murder in the New Testament , Christianity is not pro-murder.Emma

    He never said he wouldn't do it. I've asked Christians and they always say they would kill someone if God commanded it

    Finally, your paragraph regarding guilt and repentance seems odd to me. First of all, from my understanding, karma is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism, not Christianity so it doesn’t seem relevant to this particular conversation. Secondly, you use “guilt” in two different ways. The first time you use it, it seems to be referring to someone being guilty of something versus the second time you use it, it seems that you’re using guilt as a sort of emotion we humans feel when we do something wrong. Regarding the latter definition, Jesus’s sacrifice was not to help Christians feel less guilty or shameful, it was to free Christians from eternal damnation. I am not quite sure what your argument is trying to accomplish, but many parts of it seem incorrect.
    Thanks for your time!
    Emma

    You're making distinctions that only distract from the truth
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment