Mutant is actually the spawn of satan ....... OFFICIAL !!

In case you missed this... here are some incredible bible verses

http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_the-9-most-badass-bible-verses.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_16546_the-6-raunchiest-most-depraved-sex-acts-from-bible.html

Today's Bible reading is Acts Chapter 3, as found on Biblegateway.com. Those who wish to see the study tools can go to blueletterbible.org, choose New Living Translation, and search "Acts 3."
Full text:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%203&version=NLT
Acts 3

New Living Translation (NLT)
Peter Heals a Crippled Beggar

3 Peter and John went to the Temple one afternoon to take part in the three o’clock prayer service. 2 As they approached the Temple, a man lame from birth was being carried in. Each day he was put beside the Temple gate, the one called the Beautiful Gate, so he could beg from the people going into the Temple. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for some money.

4 Peter and John looked at him intently, and Peter said, “Look at us!” 5 The lame man looked at them eagerly, expecting some money. 6 But Peter said, “I don’t have any silver or gold for you. But I’ll give you what I have. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene,[a] get up and[b] walk!”

7 Then Peter took the lame man by the right hand and helped him up. And as he did, the man’s feet and ankles were instantly healed and strengthened. 8 He jumped up, stood on his feet, and began to walk! Then, walking, leaping, and praising God, he went into the Temple with them.

9 All the people saw him walking and heard him praising God. 10 When they realized he was the lame beggar they had seen so often at the Beautiful Gate, they were absolutely astounded! 11 They all rushed out in amazement to Solomon’s Colonnade, where the man was holding tightly to Peter and John.
Peter Preaches in the Temple

12 Peter saw his opportunity and addressed the crowd. “People of Israel,” he said, “what is so surprising about this? And why stare at us as though we had made this man walk by our own power or godliness? 13 For it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God of all our ancestors—who has brought glory to his servant Jesus by doing this. This is the same Jesus whom you handed over and rejected before Pilate, despite Pilate’s decision to release him. 14 You rejected this holy, righteous one and instead demanded the release of a murderer. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. And we are witnesses of this fact!

16 “Through faith in the name of Jesus, this man was healed—and you know how crippled he was before. Faith in Jesus’ name has healed him before your very eyes.

17 “Friends,[c] I realize that what you and your leaders did to Jesus was done in ignorance. 18 But God was fulfilling what all the prophets had foretold about the Messiah—that he must suffer these things. 19 Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away. 20 Then times of refreshment will come from the presence of the Lord, and he will again send you Jesus, your appointed Messiah. 21 For he must remain in heaven until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among your own people. Listen carefully to everything he tells you.’[d] 23 Then Moses said, ‘Anyone who will not listen to that Prophet will be completely cut off from God’s people.’[e]

24 “Starting with Samuel, every prophet spoke about what is happening today. 25 You are the children of those prophets, and you are included in the covenant God promised to your ancestors. For God said to Abraham, ‘Through your descendants[f] all the families on earth will be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, Jesus, he sent him first to you people of Israel, to bless you by turning each of you back from your sinful ways.”
Footnotes:

1. Acts 3:6 Or Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
2. Acts 3:6 Some manuscripts do not include get up and.
3. Acts 3:17 Greek Brothers.
4. Acts 3:22 Deut 18:15.
5. Acts 3:23 Deut 18:19; Lev 23:29.
6. Acts 3:25 Greek your seed; see Gen 12:3; 22:18.

Well.

I didn't expect my life story to be copied over to another thread...

I mean, I already polluted one thread with it...but at least that was on topic...laboring very LONG on that topic, granted, but still...

But anyway, why not, to Mujus response:

"First of all, it's easy to confuse miracles and magic"

I'm going to have to disagree right out of the gate, because again, to not equate the two, miracles and magic, is to give an implicit advantage in terms of quality and plausibility to the former, that is, if you feel that miracles are not equal to magic, or not like magic, then I'd have to say that you probably then DO believe in miracles (And obviously you do) which makes your statement somewhat biased.

After all, if we wanted to be VERY loose with this...well, if we were to imagine a world where, 2,000 years from now, Harry Potter was still being read (which I find unlikely, they're fun enough, but I don't see them as having lasting literary staying power, let alone the kind of staying power that only something as monumental as the Bible or the Iliad and Odyssey and the plays of the Greek dramatists and so on seem to have, but whatever) and there was a religion...

Let's say, 2,000 years from now, people believe Harry Potter actually existed and that the events in the "Seven Books of Potter" are true (either "literal" truth or "metaphorical" truth, so we can have fictional schisms between fictional fundamentalists in our fictional religion of Potteranity.) ;)

Now, I think everyone can see where I'm going with this--

"Yes, we get the point, Obi, that if such a thing were to occur and people believed Harry Potter was a real religious figure like people today believe Moses, Muhammad, and Jesus were real figures, then the "magic" of Potteranity, as a religion, would likely be respected and defended the same way Christians defend the Miracles, and so placing miracles above or apart from magic is subjective, as we can easily see how easily they can in fact be interchanged, when all that grants one supremacy over the other is belief that it occurred."

And that's indeed part of where I'm going--if, in the year 4012, Potteranity WAS an actual religion, then we'd have the same argument, "HP Magic is not the same as "fictional" magic."

And yet, as it BEGAN as fictional magic, and it is only belief that has transformed it into something more, we can see how flawed that reasoning is.

"But that's not fair, Obi," you may say, "because Harry Potter BEGAN as a fictional character as it was, so OF COURSE it's flawed reasoning there...but as the characters in the Bible actually DID exist, the argument doesn't work here, because we're talking about REAL PEOPLE now."

Well, first, I'll be generous there and deal with just, say, Jesus, as if indeed were to argue "all" the people in the Bible actually existed, you'd have quite a harder argument...there's at least some circumstantial evidence for a rabbi LIKE Jesus (if not the man himself) living in Judea at that time, enough that even Christopher Hitchens said that, indeed, there probably was a real-life Jesus-like figure on whom the story was based, if only very loosely...on the other hand, we have absolutely no proof for, say, an Adam and Eve or Noah, so if we deal with "all the people of the Bible," that puts the theist in a rather difficult bind of actually trying to come up with some way of "proving" Adam and Eve existed...which cannot be done.

So we'll just take Jesus, since at least Jesus has a chance of having been a real person--I personally agree with Nietzsche and Hitchens, someone probably did exist at that time that was a charismatic rabbi and died, and his cult following just ballooned and one thing led to another and a factual person may have become a legendary figure that way--and it makes for a fairer choice for the claim.

Now.

In the above statement, already, is the heart of my counterpoint to the claim that it wouldn't be fair to use the example of fictionalized Potteranity and Harry Potter being treated in 4012 as a Christ-like legend because he wasn't real, he began as fiction, whereas Jesus was real (or at least we're allowing that premise for the moment.)

Indeed, I've just restated it it right there--a "legend."

Just because someone actually DID exist does not mean that some legendary feat attributed to them also took place, and once again, we can look to literature for examples:

King Arthur--many feel there probably was some ancient king or warlord in the British Isles with a following of warriors that served as the basis for the earliest King Arthur legends, and from there the later legends bloomed...but the fact that there very well may have been a "real" King Arthur doesn't mean the magical Excalibur existed, did it? Or that he really had knights like Gawain, who met a knight who could survive having his head chopped off and was a towering green giant of a man, or Galahad, who found the Holy Grail and ascended into Heaven?

Even if anthropologists did dig up something that conclusively proved a proto-Arthur did in fact exist, that would NOT prove the Sword in the Stone myth, or Excalibur, or any of the other fantastical flights of fantasy that the Arthurian Legend claims.

The same may be said of Robin Hood--indeed, there may well have been such a figure and even perhaps a bandit gang on whom Robin Hood and His Merry Men were based off of...

That would NOT prove that Robin was such a great shot he could split an arrow to hit a bulls-eye, or any of his other fantastic feats, or indeed explain how Robin seems to travel the English countryside at a record pace (really, if you read some of those poems and ballads, he literally will travel tens of miles and miles in the space of a day, which sounds doable until you realize, in some cases, just how many miles it IS from his start to finish point, and the fact that this is a man on foot in the Middle Ages.)

Proof of Robin Hood would not be proof of the legend's claims.

The same goes for Jesus--proof he existed in some form would NOT be proof that he indeed turned water to wine, or made the lame to walk, or walked on water, or survived death, or any of the other feats attributed to the person/character.

"But King Arthur, Obi, and Robin Hood were mere mortals, whereas Jesus was the Son of God--"

Prove it.
That's ANOTHER claim, and for you to make it and make it stand up, you need proof, and proof--albeit mostly circumstantial proof at best--that Jesus existed doesn't prove ANY of those claims.

And if Jesus IS just a character, or WAS just a person with fictionalized accounts of miracles attached to his name...

Then THOSE fictionalized miracles carry no more weight than Harry Potter's fictionalized magic.

Miracles ARE equal to magic, the only difference is whether or not you give them credence with your believing in them or not.

"But miracles aren't like magic in that we can't control them--only God can--so in that way, following God doesn't have the same appeal as following magic/superpowers.
But that's no reason to reject God, either."

1. AGAIN, you're making an assumption about the nature of a supernatural event based upon your belief in a character's abilities, a belief that is not substantiated with any kind of proof, so I'll leave that point here and refer you above on that point as to why I feel that argument doesn't work from that angle of assumption.

2. I'm going to say something that might not be expected, given your statement:

God's controlling miracles would NOT be a reason for me to "turn away from God," if anything, if this were the case, and there was a confirmed, proven God who had a monopoly over miracles...well, it would AT LEAST seem to validate belief in his existence and awe at his miracles; given what his miracles are I'd admit that at best I'd find him a very mixed bag and probably not be a great fan of his, but AT LEAST I could say he existed and that there was proof evident of that existence and something that set him apart and made him genuinely "above" humanity in some capacity (whereas the God of the Bible, particularly in the OT, as I have already stated, far from coming across as a divine being "above" humanity, seems every bit as petty and brutal and barbaric as a 2,000 B.C. Middle Eastern tribal man might be assumed to be...and as it was 2,000 B.C. Middle Eastern tribal men that created his character, that's hardly a surprise.)

Would I embrace such a God that monopolize miracles, especially if they were like those in the Bible?
No--I'd still find such a creature morally repugnant.
But AT LEAST I'd have to concede such a creature did exist and that he did have those powers, and THEN the theist could make their argument--that I'm sure some are already ready to make--that as this God *would be* "above humanity," and these powers are unique to him, it then may be argued that it would be only fair he reserve the right to use and potentially (in my view) abuse those powers as he saw fit.

After all, if we are going to make a superpowers analogy, Superman doesn't actually physically "share" his power with everyone, he doesn't help everyone else to fly or have heat vision or super strength...if I wanted to be extremely generous, I could admit that he can't, and so maybe this God couldn't do that, either (although if we call this character of God "all-powerful" and able to do anything, he SHOULD be able to do that, and if he cannot, well, we're back into the old argument, if he cannot he's not all-powerful, as there's something he's unable to do, and if he can but chooses not to and suffering ensues as a result, one might argue--successfully or not--he's then malicious or not completely benign because he allows and from a certain point of view abets suffering.)

But EVEN SUPERMAN shares his power with everyone in that he strives to help everyone, that is, he doesn't use his powers selfishly, but for the greater good, whereas the OT God very commonly may be seen as being rather petty and self-interested or, at the very least, only interested in his people.

"But wait!" the theists here surely exclaim, "JESUS is sort of like that, too, he's very much like Superman in that regard, in that he has supernatural powers"--divine miracles or magic or superpowers, take your pick, again, unless you PROVE one to exist, they're all fictionalized and thus on the same level"--"and so you see, Obi, that the very same reasons you praise Superman may be applied to Jesus, so why shun Jesus?"

Well, I'll give two short answers:

1. I don't believe Jesus DID have those powers, and his teachings are hit and miss, so I feel no need to embrace his teachings...not so much shunning as complete indifference, I suppose, with the exception of a few selections that sound like nice pieces of advice and a few others that don't sound as nice, but in any case, I don't think he had powers or did those things, so barring proof, he's at best on par with the philosophers and orators, and there are countless others I'd place ahead of Jesus in terms of the quality, clarity, and brilliance of their ideas and/or message, so really, unless Christianity can somehow prove he WAS the Son of God, his messages carry about as much weight as the Last Son of Krypton (in fact, as I like Superman as a character--though not nearly as much as Batman--far more than Jesus as a literary.pop culture character, probably less) and no more.

2. As I've said before, I'm not a Biblical expert--working on it, reading my way through, painful as it is at times, and my new college even offers the KJ Bible as Literature for a course, and I can take so few Literature courses due to time constraints that I might just end up taking that one, so we'll see--but I THINK there are some passages where Jesus acts in a manner that I would again count as petty...I think we discussed one such instance way back, I can't recall the passage, something about belief in him is salvation and he'll feed you if you believe...Superman saves EVERYONE, even those who aren't on his side, even his enemies, Lex Luthor, for example, so the fact that Jesus might not help you if you don't believe seems, if not callous, not as benevolent as I'd expect from someone with his reputation--but then again I may have jumbled the passage around a bit above as, again, I'm not an expert (especially with regards to the NT) and I can't recall the passage, just that we discussed such a thing a while back.

"First of all, wanting to believe that God exists has nothing to do with whether he does or not. I think it's important to separate those two points."

I agree, and I've stated that before.

"Second, even though there are Jews and Christians that believe that creation happened in the seven literal days, there are also many who believe that the timeline is not literal, and that people were not created literally out of dust. One doesn't have to believe that literally to connect with God, just as we don't have to believe that Jesus was a literal door, vine, path, or that it was literally his blood that the disciples were drinking. So in sum, a belief in evolution does not preclude a belief in God."

1. When I took American Literature I--an odd way to start a response, I know, but I'll be brief...I mean it, I will be--we took a look at some Native American responses to America's growth and their trying to assimilate Native Americans into their culture and take land as well. One person we read went by the name of Red Jacket, and he said something that I feel was extremely insightful and eloquent on the Bible, and his response to being told his people should be forced to convert, to paraphrase:

"You all own the Book, yes? You all can read the Book? Then why do you disagree about what it means? If you can debate your Book and your God, why is it we cannot discuss ours as well?"

And that would be my response to the whole literal/figurative debate in terms of the Bible--all of the different sects and religions can read the Book, yes? You all own it? Then why the debate? Surely the Word of a Perfect God to his children should be clear enough that they shouldn't have to play a game of Telephone across the ages and read and hear the meaning differently?

I'm sorry, but the literal/figurative divide is just absurd to me...and I'd be remiss if I didn't add that I find it more absurd still in those cases where some take the Bible literally for SOME portions, while for OTHERS it's meant to be figurative...that's fence-sitting and reading in what you want into a text to its most laughable degree, because while there IS some backing for such a position as that in Critical Literary Theory, THAT would apply for a work of FICTION, and the argument being that as it's fiction and a human creation then the reader helps to shape the fiction by way of his imagination, and thus we can to a certain extent always read new things into "Hamlet" or "The Sun Also Rises" or whatever else we read, because we'll always have new things to imagine...

But if a text is supposed to be nonfictional TRUTH...well, it hardly works to read what you want into it then, does it?

2. On that note, then, I feel you DO have to take a side when reading the Bible--and I agree (yet again) with Hitchens and Hume and like-minded individuals who said that, as it was probably written as an account of what people at least THOUGHT literally happened, it is more charitable to the original meaning of the text to take the Bible literally.

And, if I do that...well, then I'm afraid that a basic understanding of sciences DOES force me to, at best, have severe reservations about the Bible, if I must take Genesis literally as 7 days worth of creation when I know that is not at all the case of how that came to be, and Noah's Ark defies all scientific logic, as does stopping the sun in the sky so a battle can be won--this would be an instance, by the way, that I think the Bible shows itself to clearly be meant to be taken literally, as this is, predating it or otherwise, clearly an Aristotelian understanding of the cosmos that places the sun in orbit around the earth and presumes that it can be stopped as the lesser of two creations, and we obviously know that not to be the case--and so on.

And at this point, Mujus, overall, for the WHOLE God Debate, I'd like to point to great deal-breaker with me in terms of God--

Namely, that there is no one silver-bullet deal breaker.

YES, I could see how someone could argue that if a being were all-powerful, then OF COURSE he can suspend the rules of science and logic, and so an illogical and unscientific Genesis ALONE doesn't kill God.

And YES, I can see how someone can say that despite how despicable God may seem morally, and how immoral and Orwellian the conceit is, such a God might exist, and therefore, we must make allowance.

One OR the other doesn't kill it...

I was strongly agnostic for many years before I became an atheist, and for a simple reason:

I had one strong reason to not believe (ie, the lack of science or logic on his side) but not another, and so again, I said, for many years, "I don't think such a being does exist, but I can at least entertain the possibility, after all, if he was All-Powerful, he could seemingly suspend logic and science, so a lack of it on His account doesn't kill it...and perhaps there are still some good moral ideas in there.)

And then I finally came to the conclusion--there AREN'T good moral ideas in there.

Or, to be more precise (and fair) the few good ideas are outweighed by far more injustices, and what's even WORSE, what was the final straw, the third strike--

The fact that God's Heaven DID seem very Orwellian...and that the text itself and even believers seemed to back this precept up; again, after "Hamlet," "Paradise Lost" is my favorite work of all-time, and the Heaven that God has has in that work, and the character of God himself, are SO unsympathetic and SO indifferent and SO demanding and utterly controlling and SO restrictive and the fact that there isn't any way for Satan to win in such a situation, being fed up with God's control yet being unable to successfully rebel because of the total control and power God wields, yet STILL saying "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" because God's rule is SO controlling...

Milton's God and Heaven are so very much the antithesis of what we as freedom-seeking creatures would want that, indeed, for as much of a Christian as he was, many have speculated that Milton might have intended Satan to be an anti-hero in the work, since we can empathize with Satan so much easier than we can with a God that's as indifferent and callous as Milton's God.

(Those who defend the notion of Milton's Heavenly Realm not being wicked generally point to 1. The fact that Gabriel as a character is morally decent, 2. Jesus, for as little time as he's there, seems rather moral and, indeed, actually a lot more empathetic towards the plight of Adam and Eve and what's about to happen than God himself, and 3. That while the much quoted "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" is one of the most famous lines of the work, Heaven, Hell, and Eden are all portrayed as having their pros and cons, and arguably none of the realms are ideal, and if they all are flawed, then then in a choice between flawed and potentially wicked or corrupted realms, Heaven might be the pick of a bad lot...all of these points have a literary basis, and it's a valid argument, but I would argue that the fact that Milton allows Satan to be so sympathetic and God so callous and indifferent ALONE should be an indication of Milton's bent, and the fact that Jesus is arguably morally superior to his father works here as well, as Milton starts the entire poem by invoking and praising Jesus and contrasting him with "Man's first disobedience," so just as Jesus may be seen as a redeemer for Adam, Man, and possibly even Satan in this context, so too it might be argued that he's even a redeemer for the sins of his indifferent father...but then, we could debate "Paradise Lost" happily for hours.) :)

In ANY case...

A lack of evidence,
The Scripture taken literally (as I think it mus be taken) contradicts science and logic,
The barbarism and lack of morality in a supposedly-moral book,
The wickedness of God himself,
The charge of God being Orwellian in his rule and conduct,
The idea that the concept of a God and sinful human beings opposes basic human dignity...

ALL these factor into my rejection of God, ALL are why I moved from agnosticism to atheism (though I'd prefer the terms Nietzsche and Hitchens pioneered, "Antichrist" in Nietzsche's sense, that is, one completely rejecting the precepts and attitude of Christianity, and, more suitable still, "anti-theist," as I'd be against ANY God or gods or religion built upon them.)

And all that's WITHOUT factoring in all the wickedness and lack of logic and cruelty of ORGANIZED religion...

I could rail about THAT on and on, and it's yet another reason why I hold religion in contempt, because much like political parties, organized religion was something many Founding Fathers in America opposed...

But realized were certain to form and take root due to the nature of how most people are, namely, that just as when people have similar political stances they tend to pool resources and try and form a stronger platform and from that may be born a party, so too when people hold similar religious beliefs there is that tendency to seek out one another and pool resources and build a shared religious community in that respect.

It may occur naturally, but that doesn't mean I have to hold it as anything other than contemptible.

"In reply, I would say that you should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, by which I mean, just because it's not logical to expect to be a hero like King Arthur or have magic powers like Andre Norton's witches, that doesn't mean that God isn't real or that he doesn't in fact have a plan for your life--but one that meets his standards, and not our own juvenile ones."

I feel I've already beat this point to death, so I'll simply say here that as it's my life (unless you can prove to me that my life belongs to God, and if it does, I must say, the idea that my life is "owned" by God or that my life belongs to him to determine doesn't make me feel spiritual or enlightened, but rather like a slave) I think I should get to have a say in how it unfolds and what I choose to have occur in it...

MY plan, NOT God's, however juvenile or misinformed that "plan" might be.

"It's just like learning that the Piltdown Man was a hoax shouldn't destroy your faith in archaeology and the science of anthropology, although you should certainly take similar claims with a grain of salt."

Well, I'm not treating the Arthurian legend as a "hoax," just as...well, a legend.
And you'll notice that it didn't destroy my love of literature.
And indeed, I still DO love the Arthurian legend...I just know to treat it as a legend.
As a legend, it still has value for me as a work of literature.
Aside from historical and influential aspects, however, I don't put much value in the Bible,
As such, I don't put any value in God beyond that of a literary figure on whom to write.

"So yes, it is possible that God is real, that he has a plan for your life, and that you can life with him forever if you seek him with all your heart. I can understand not wanting to be disappointed again, but that's the thing--God doesn't disappoint, not in the long run, even though our own particular interpretations of how we want things don't often come to pass."

Well, I wasn't really "disappointed" with King Arthur...after all, as I said, I still look on it fondly and put value in it as literature.

It's just a matter of perspective, and growing out of the juvenile position that the Legend was Truth.

So it's not my feeling afraid of being "hurt" that I don't ascribe to the Biblical Legend...

Bur simply that I don't LIKE that legend, and so there's no starting point anyway, I can't even say I like it as a story, as I can with the Arthurian Legend, it has no value to me other than what I've already given.

I grew out of my "Wouldn't It Be Great if King Arthur Were True?" phase the same way I'm sure plenty of kids grew out of a LOTR phase or a Star Wars phase or a Harry Potter phase or whatever else...

Me being a lover of literature and a snob, I just eschewed pop culture and went straight for something that was considered "deeper reading" by some and likely had some roots in fact, with most of the actual story being just that, a story.

And it was love for the STORY that wanted me to see it be true, and then love for the idea that that story might be true that led to a desire to WANT to see that story be true.

If you've ever read Oscar Wilde's "The Portrait of Mr. W.H.," wherein someone is in love with the idea Shakespeare wrote his sonnets to a Mr. W.H., which is an idea that he has that has little to no proof, but he loves the idea so much that he falls in love with the IDEA of ut being true and then WANTS to see it be true...

It's much like that--you have to love the STORY first...and from THAT any spiritual inklings towards that story being "true" or it having any impact in terms of "meaning" in your life follows.

I loved King Arthur's story so much I loved the idea that it might be true and what that might mean for the story and for myself, and from THAT grew my desire to see it be true...

But as I have no such love for the Bible's story, I cannot reach that second phase, namely, love of the idea of it being true, and without, I cannot reach the third phase, truly wanting to believe it's true, and from that, the final phase, actual sustained faith and belief that it's true--

I never even got to the final phase with Arthur, a story I loved enough to get to the third stage, as I was grounded enough to know that, while I could maybe hope Arthur and these people actually existed, and I could hope for a Troy-like excavation that would find an actual Tomb for Lancelot or Gawain or Arthur, or maybe the ruins of Camelot, or something, I never could bring myself to actually have FAITH and BELIEVE that Gawain met a Green Knight that was completely green and could survive having his head cut off, or that Galahad found the Holy Grail and ascended to Heaven, or that Merlin was actually a wizard and actually did put himself to sleep to awaken another day.

I loved Arthur's story, but was grounded enough still not to "believe" in it to that extent, even when I wanted to use it as a sort of metaphorical base for human virtue and meaning...

I don't like the Biblical story at all, and so I have no reason to feel any inclination towards seeing that love of a story evolve into a love of the ideals into a sincere desire for that story and ideals to be true into actual faith in that story and ideals BEING true.



If the story moves you along that path, Mujus,
If you proceed from love of the story
To love if the ideals
To a sincere desire to see that story and ideals be upheld as true
To actual sustained faith that the story, natural and supernatural elements alike, occurred, then I obviously disagree, and don't see it as something to like--

But I understand why you do like it, in that regard, if that's how you arrive at your faith.
I'd naturally discourage belief, in the same way you encourage it...
But by that same token, as a literature person--everyone has the right to love the story or stories that ring truest to them...

And while I argue that they aren't true and are often immoral,

If the Bible rings true with you the same way King Arthur and Shakespeare and Milton and Eliot and that crowd all ring true with me--

Then enjoy your books as I enjoy mine. :)

Obi two brief responses: 1) '"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"' That's a false choice. You don't get to reign in Hell.

2) "I feel I've already beat this point to death, so I'll simply say here that as it's my life (unless you can prove to me that my life belongs to God, and if it does, I must say, the idea that my life is "owned" by God or that my life belongs to him to determine doesn't make me feel spiritual or enlightened, but rather like a slave) I think I should get to have a say in how it unfolds and what I choose to have occur in it...

MY plan, NOT God's, however juvenile or misinformed that "plan" might be."

This one is a true choice--You get to choose, absolutely. The Christian message at its core is simply that thanks to God's love and Jesus' sacrifice, you now have two choices rather than one--and that therefore, you should choose life.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Hey Obi. I read a really interesting post lately about. How the word day is a possible mistranslation of the ancient Hebrew word used. As that word means both day and indeterminate unit of time. If day at the unit of time is the incorrect translation. It should really be more like 7 ages. Which I find to be a compelling narrative.
Also regarding the idea of a compassionate got creating us to fail. This is another narrative that doesn't seem to make sense. It makes more sense to say when god bestowed free will he see the plethora of options. Rather than a pre determined fate. He is still all knowing as he knows all possibilities. Finally the god of the old testemant doesn't seem to be very compassionate which makes sense. For when he looks at man all he sees is the perversion of all he has created by sin. He can only be compassionate once he has saved humanity though the christ figure

"1) '"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven"'
That's a false choice. You don't get to reign in Hell."

Milton's line, not mine. :)

Plus, this being poetry, it IS meant to have a meaning besides the literal, it's sort of a psychological statement, that he'd rather be in the agony of being in a fallen state and failure, and yet know that he "rules over" that failure, that, is, that he was able to make a choice for himself, and he prizes that over submission and happiness in submission...he later tells his followers that they'll never yield, so it's that sort of mentality, that he'd rather have control over a failure and know that at least in agony what he has is his rather than submit to someone else's will...and there are good and bad aspects to that sort of mentality, it makes him very dynamic, on the one hand, and it's definitely a great mentality to have to take ownership of yourself and "rule over" yourself, rather than just always listening to someone else, and his obsession gives him a sense of meaning that he didn't feel in Heaven, but on the other hand it obviously leads him to ruin, so it poses a question--

Is it better to be free and in control of yourself, yet in agony (and if you're a religious person, in Hell, and if you're not, in a psychological "Hell")...

OR

Is it better to be at peace and happy, yet be submissive and to give up a certain amount of literal or existential freedom and control over your life?

It's like "Brave New World"--

Is it better to be the characters who are happy, but are happy because they've given up control over their lives to pills that make them happy and genetic and psychological conditioning that cost them their freedoms...

Or is it better to be like John the Savage, who has control over his life and is literate in a society lacking literature and is knowledgeable, but ultimately miserable in such a society to an extent he ends up killing himself?

Happy or Free--if you have to choose, which do you choose?

Gabriel and the other Angels choose Happiness and Peace with God...

Satan chooses Freedom (or at least trying for freedom, he can be argued to succeed or not) in rebelling against God and separating himself from him...

Adam and Eve get the same choice in the Garden of Eden--

Adam chooses Happiness and to obey God...

Eve chooses Freedom/Control and is tempted to eat the fruit and become as powerful as God as a means of Freedom.

And it's interesting that Milton doesn't take a side, but splits his sympathies--

Gabriel and Adam get language that suggests they're more blessed creatures...

But on the other hand,

Satan and Eve are more dynamic characters, they "do" more than Gabriel and Adam, and their actions are far more memorable.

So there's something to be said for both sides.

Which, again, is just one of many reasons why, after "Hamlet," this is my favorite work of all-time, you could go on and on and ON going back and forth and digging through everything Milton gives his characters, and where it would have been so easy to simply make the story back-and-white, make God/Gabriel/Adam completely in the right and Satan/Eve completely in the wrong and/or sinful, he gives pros and cons to each...

God is powerful, and he wins, but isn't very sympathetic in the story,
Satan is pathetic, and he loses, but is very sympathetic in the story,
Adam is treated as a noble creature, and his Fall's a tragedy, but he's static,
Eve is treated as an accident waiting to happen, and damns everyone, but she's dynamic.

Everyone and every side has their moment, and it's for THAT reason that I've said what must be hundreds of times now--

If the whole Bible were written the way Milton writes "Paradise Lost," I'd not only be far more eager to read it, even as an atheist, I'd probably LOVE IT.

The Biblical Account is so often black and white...

Milton's Account is anything but, and THAT'S why it's intellectually and morally superior in my opinion, Milton, for as much of a Christian as he was, realizes that there's more to the issues of morality and ethics and how to live than the black and white answers given, and more to "Good" and "Evil" than just being "Good" or just being "Evil," there are not only shades of grey, but reasons for each decision, and sometimes it's possible for someone to be Good and Evil at the same time, in different ways, which is the case with those main characters

God's a Good Creator in Milton's story, he sets about to make things in a benevolent way...but he's shown to be something of a Bad Ruler, he's indifferent to the war that's taking place, and even to The Fall of Man, it's Jesus and Gabriel in Heaven who are concerned and saddened, not so much God...

Satan's a Bad Creator, it's shown he can't really create, and only destroy, and that he'd likely be a terrible Creator, he's so flawed...but he's shown to be a Good Ruler, it's actually somewhat surprising (and really shocking for Milton's day) that Satan's not only sympathetic, but actually almost caring in a sense, he genuinely cares about those he leads into battle against God, he sees them as tools in his own end, but also as fellow comrades, and it's shown time and again that just as his army's about to break, Satan will rally his troop's spirits and say something that genuinely connects with them, and it's not always vitriol towards God, sometimes it's just encouraging them and telling them that he still believes in them and himself and the cause.

IMAGINE how dynamic that could've been for OTHER Biblical stories, if it were told that way, with pros and cons to each character:

IMAGINE Exodus, and Moses warning Pharaoh that he'll kill the first-borns in Egypt via God if he doesn't let his people go...

And one of his followers asking Moses "Gee, is that really the way to go? We want freedom, but does freedom from oppressive slavery justify what amounts to mass infanticide against innocent children?"

NOW you have a real moral dilemma on your hands, and it's one we deal with in the real world everyday, as rebels and terrorists and legitimate governments alike all ask the same question--

When, if ever, do the ends justify the means?

Or, sticking with the OT, and going back to a story that repulses me and I shared as much just a week ago...

Suppose, upon being told to slaughter all the Amalekites, Samuel did what Satan does in Book II of "Paradise Lost," and holds a summit, and ASK everyone what they think, if they should go through with this and take their revenge with God's backing or else reject the path of war and maybe ask God if there's an olive branch way to settle this (as Lot bargains with God in Genesis over how many just men he can find in Sodom and Gomorrah in order to spare the cities' people, surely Samuel can at least talk to God along those same lines or, again, before brutally murdering everyone...maybe they could all at least TALK about it, and again, take a page from Satan's book when he asks them to say not only if they are in favor of attacking or not, but WHY they feel the way they do, so again, we can get both sides--

Some, with an understandable claim, might say "They attacked us, let's not forget that, it's us versus them, and turnabout is fair play,"

And some might say "Well, if we have the backing of God, and we just escaped an empire with blood on its hands, maybe we don't want to start off as a newly-freed people by getting blood on our hands, maybe there's another way."

And then, at least, whatever the decision is, we could AT LEAST say the Bible had the foresight to give both sides of a legitimate ethical and political dilemma and dealt with it as the complex issue that it was, rather than some black and white, clear cut, this-is-the-word-of-God-so-this-is-right answer.

Which the bible won't do--it's a book that's part oral history and part an attempt to explain and enforce a code of morality that had developed, and when attempting to enforce such a code, black-and-white absolutes are generally the direction things take...look no further than the Ten Commandments--

All are absolutes, because all are being given as foundational precepts of a moral code, whereas we who read the Commandments can think of plenty of situations in which breaking some of them might be, if not moral, at least worth discussing--

If we take Bearing False Witness as lying...surely there are instances when lying is permissible? If you're hiding runaway slaves as part of the Underground Railroad and your slave-holding neighbor asks you if you are harboring slaves...

Most of us, I assume, would say it would be moral to Bear False Witness and lie to that neighbor?

Generally you should not murder (though the Church has never seemed to have much trouble burning people at the stake or slaughtering people in Crusades or killing Jews in the Inquisition or whatever else, just so long as "God" approved of it, but I digress) but what about political assassinations of dictators--

A cliched question, but surely if you had the ability to shoot Hitler in the head on the day before WWII began, or before Kristallnacht began, you'd take it, and few would blame you, indeed, many might hail you as a hero?

Thou Shalt Not Steal--What about stealing enemy military codes, or pulling a Jean Valjean and stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family?

"But that's an acceptable case--" not according to the absolutist nature of the Commandment.

And so on.

About the only one I can't think of any good example of a time when it'd be at least up for discussion as to whether breaking it would be moral or not would be Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

In any case, my issue with all of this is just the absolutism of it all, the dogmatism, and the fact that, not only does this undercut a lot of the supposed morality (and yes, I'm using OT examples mainly in terms of the idea of "morality," I'll be fair and leave the NT alone on that account since I can't adequately comment on it here) and that such an idea, "You don't get to reign in Hell," follows from that dogmatic view, whereas a view such as that held by Milton, with nuances and complexities, allows for both sides of an issue, a true discussion of moral dilemmas, and indeed allows for more than one answer--

In one sense, Satan cannot reign in Hell, or reign at all, it's part of his tragedy...

But in another sense, by trying, and in trying by being chosen as a leader amongst his peers and leading an army, even in leading an army into oblivion, Satan reigns over himself to a certain extent...

Even if he's defeated, and he is, he can still say he's his own agent, whereas Gabriel, who's victorious and slices Satan to pieces and gets to live in Heaven blessed amongst the angels, is portrayed as largely being a front-man for God, and he doesn't do much on his own volition, it's mostly him following orders or what he expects God would want him to do, whereas Satan does what he wants to do...it ruins him, but he can at least claim he chose for himself, and in that sense, he does "reign" over Hell...

Because of ANOTHER famous line--

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heav'n."

So Satan creates his own "Hell" for himself by rebelling against God...but in that same psychological sense, as he creates that Hell, he also reigns over it.

It's not so black-and-white, as it is in the Bible.

"This one is a true choice--You get to choose, absolutely. The Christian message at its core is simply that thanks to God's love and Jesus' sacrifice, you now have two choices rather than one--and that therefore, you should choose life."

First, I'd like to think there are many, many more choices than two...or one...

And that again, two choices, this OR that, with OR against...

That sort of black-and-white logic is what I don't like about the Bible--

Life is more complex than that.

This is part of the reason that, while I don't hate him, I'm not a great fan of Jesus--

Socrates freely debated with his friends about what the answer to any question might be...there could be several answers, and Socrates wins every argument, generally, because it's Plato writing and Plato wants his mentor to win, but it's telling that even at the end of the argument, not everyone always agrees Socrates is right, and Socrates honors that and says that they have a right to their opinion as well and after all, there are more answers than just his.

With Jesus, it's very much "You have a choice...but my way is the correct way."

Maybe that seems an unfair characterization, but that does seem to be the general feeling with Jesus, and that's DEFINITELY the feeling with God--

He might give you a "choice" with free will...but do something he doesn't like and you're probably going to be severely punished.

Socrates never punished anyone for disagreeing with him...when he gave them a choice as to who to believe and what to do, he meant it, no strings attached.

Damian--well put, and food for thought. +1!

"Hey Obi. I read a really interesting post lately about. How the word day is a possible mistranslation of the ancient Hebrew word used. As that word means both day and indeterminate unit of time. If day at the unit of time is the incorrect translation. It should really be more like 7 ages. Which I find to be a compelling narrative."

OK, well, if you find that compelling, Damian, good for you, I suppose...

It still doesn't compel me or, indeed, make the Creation Account of Genesis any more plausible, on two counts:

1. Probably the most obvious, an "age" isn't exactly a determinate amount of time, either, so that's not validating the timeline as it is...on the surface it may seem to remove the issue of the world being created in 6 days, but it's just replacing that with "age," which is vague and can mean...well, as much or as little time as you want, really, so I'd say if someone were inclined to say "Ah, now that makes sense" such a person would probably have already been looking for a way for it to make sense and justify the account anyway...it being an "age" rather than a day doesn't help the account's timeline all that much, and after all, Genesis would STILL have dozens upon dozens of scientific and logical errors, so even if I were to be generous and say this fixed any holes (and I don't, in fact, I'd go so far as to say it hurts the Creationist argument, and I'll say why in a moment) there would still be far, FAR too many, and the Creationist ship would still sink and, in fact, really has sunk to those in the business of being logical about it; if you want to hold it as a part of your religion, as much as I don't care for religion, that's your choice, and I can understand someone saying "I know there are huge logical issues with it, but I'm willing to suspend Logic for Faith in the case of Genesis," but when Genesis or any other Creation account is attempted to be presented as fact, it fails, and miserably.

2. Besides ALL that, however, is how I think this would actually hurt the Creationist argument--namely, that it'd be the case of someone saying either that there was a mistranslation or a misunderstanding in regards to the text...for one, that doesn't imbue me those like me with a sense of trust in either the text (ie, the Bible itself) or translators (ie, the various Judeo-Christian sects) or those claiming the text to be truthful. After all, if this is a mistake, or mistranslation, what other mistranslations are there? If it's a corruption, that is, if the text has been corrupted by millenia of translating it and re-translating it across the various eons and into thousands of languages and thousands of versions WITHIN those thousands of languages...well, no one would be surprised, but it would expose a flaw in trusting this text as factual or true on any account, as well as the religions based off of it.

"Also regarding the idea of a compassionate got creating us to fail. This is another narrative that doesn't seem to make sense. It makes more sense to say when god bestowed free will he see the plethora of options. Rather than a pre determined fate. He is still all knowing as he knows all possibilities."

And yet in that passage, you show why such a God would, in fact, be a God designing us to fail--

If He can see and know everything, then he would have to know that Eve would make that choice if he gave her the opportunity to make it or, to be more fair, if he presented the conditions for that choice to occur and then "left it to her own free will." If I design a car with the ignition switch actually being one that blows up the car, and put this car in the driveway of someone I know will drive it the first chance they get, leave the keys on the driveway, and say to them "If you start the car, you'll blow up, but it's your choice," it's STILL my "creating the situation of failure," as it were, it's their fault for doing it and getting into the car, but as I knew what would happen if I presented the situation and gave them everything they needed in order for the catastrophe to occur, I, too, am to blame for this incident...

And THAT isn't even charitable enough to Eve, that is, AT LEAST my drive-crazy friend would have had KNOWLEDGE of driving, and of what "blown up" means, and of right and wrong...Eve, with no knowledge--or at least not the knowledge of right from wrong--is told to make a decision that requires obedience, which in this context (if we're going to be charitable and NOT take it as an Orwellian command from a Big Brother God) is essentially that, a decision of right vs. wrong, obedience vs. disobedience...

She has the mind of a child, without knowing right from wrong, and I've asked this same question over and over as I talk to different Christians about this in different settings:

"If you told your 2-year old son or daughter, who has no real understanding of danger or right or wrong and has a childlike, uneducated mind, NOT to touch the hot stove, and proceeded to turn the stove on full force and leave an open flame burning on top...and your child went to touch that flame...and touching that flame would not just hurt him TODAY, but leave a painful scar that would be with him the rest of his life--since we're supposed to 'bear' that sin of Eve as well--and you leave the child to make his 'choice'...

If he goes to touch that flame, knowing all that, would you NOT yank your son away IMMEDIATELY to save them from that horrible pain and scarring and give them a talking to...OR would you let them, indeed, burn themselves badly because of a fire YOU started and a situation YOU let take place AS THE ADULT IN THE ROOM?"

Bonus Question:

"If you in fact DID know your child would touch the flame YOU started, and refused to pull them away, and thus through your own malignant neglect led to their considerable pain that you knew was going to occur, enabled to occur, and allowed to occur...if you let your son burn themselves like that because of something YOU did--can you give me a good reason NOT to call Child Protective Services and have your son taken away from you and file charges?"

As it is above, so it is with God--either he's not all-knowing, or he's a malignant parent, because free will is all and good...

But if you're that 2-year old, and Adam and Eve essentially were, they are NOT responsible for their actions, I'm sorry, but they're not, NOT ONE philosopher of ethics through the ages--from Plato to Aristotle to Aquinas to Locke to Rousseau to Kant and Mill and on and on--accepts that idea, they ALL agree that a child like that can't be responsible for themselves, and no court in America or Britain or anywhere else in the Western World would convict them, MUCH LESS convict them AND all their children to follow of a crime.

"Finally the god of the old testemant doesn't seem to be very compassionate which makes sense. For when he looks at man all he sees is the perversion of all he has created by sin. He can only be compassionate once he has saved humanity though the christ figure"

That's attributing human attributes to God, though.

God, being above human emotions and a human emotional state, should be "above" anger at a perversion of his creation (and I'd reiterate essentially what I've said above, namely, if his creation is "perverted" in some way, and that perversion began with Adam and Eve, and every single last philosopher of ethics and every court in the US and UK and all throughout the Western World would charge a figure like God with Child Neglect and Child Endangerment and not charge Adam and Eve as the 2-year olds that they were...well, then that perversion is God's fault, and he should only be wrathful and angry at himself...and that's IF we keep with the Bible's character of God in which he's Human, All Too Human, he's far too much like a human character...if he IS like a divine being, and above such concepts as hate or wrath or pettiness or any of that...well, then he shouldn't feel wrathful at all, should he?)

You're still reading it wrong.

Genesis is not an account of what happened, one time. It is an account of what is always happening. Man is always exercising his free will. He is always choosing sin/error (call it what you will). It is human nature. It is not that all mankind are punished for one ancestor's choice. It is, that at some point in the mists of early history, humanity (or humanity's immediate evolutionary predecessors--but my argument would be that this is the point that marks the beginning of homo sapiens) became cognizant of good and evil. We were no longer childlike, as the animals are. We became conscious. Each human being goes through this themselves. We become conscious of our own will and we start to exercise it.

So, no, he wasn't setting mankind up "to fail." God granted and grants us the opportunity to choose him freely. He wanted other hearts, other minds, other wills, that could respond to His Love and His Mind and His Will.

This is actually one of the things that binds me to Christianity, despite the doubts I have had. The Fall of Man is real. I see it in me and around me every day. It is because of my consciousness of my fallen state, that I want a Christ.

The Ten Commandments and most of the rest of Exodus/Leviticus were a legal code. You don't write ambiguity into a legal code. You want it clear.

And yes, there are black-and-white stories in there. There was certainly a tradition that wanted the Bible to be used to reinforce falling in line behind the Priestly class. But there are many passages that are just the opposite--indeed, when you factor in the huge corpus of the Prophets, many of whom are criticizing and rebuking the corruption of the Priests, I'd argue that the balance falls on the other side.

And if you don't see the moral ambiguities in the OT, you are missing a lot. What about the story of Tamar and Judah? This is the founding father of the Jewish tribe, and they portray him going to a harlot! What is this story about? It's not black-and-white by any means, and it is a deep story that leads to a fundamental change in Judah's character--a change that makes him the brother that steps forward in Benjamin's stead and thus proves to Joseph in Egypt that his brothers have matured, have changed.

What about Abraham bartering with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah? What about the whole character arc of Jacob? Or of David? What about Jonah? Samson, the hero, who is also a brutish lout?

BTW, I'd choose John Savage any day. The Brave New World of Huxley is the most hellish future I can imagine, and yet also the one that seems the most likely.

You're also misreading Socrates. He never gave any answers. Plato did, certainly, but not Socrates. His primary function was much like a Hebrew Prophet's. He was a gadfly, who questioned the conventional wisdom, who challenged people to think, who made them examine things. But he never gave answers.

I actually think Jesus and Socrates had this in common. Jesus also asked and raised many questions, often without supplying the answers, and he was also a gadfly who stung the rich, the rulers, and the self-satisfied.

"You're also misreading Socrates. He never gave any answers. Plato did, certainly, but not Socrates. His primary function was much like a Hebrew Prophet's. He was a gadfly, who questioned the conventional wisdom, who challenged people to think, who made them examine things. But he never gave answers."

That's what I mean when I say that he "gave answers," namely, that he posed the Socratic Method and questioning and actual discussion as an answer (or perhaps, to be more precise, a means to the end of finding an answer in the form of a personal answer, ie, an opinion) and opinion and debate.

I'm not saying Socrates said "This is correct, this is not," indeed, he's most famous for saying (if he even did say it) "The only thing I know for certain is that I know nothing."

That in itself, that mindset, is something of an "answer" or, again, a mental state that can be used on the road to finding answers...

And it stands in stark contrast to someone saying "Thou Shalt Not" or the laws of Leviticus and Exodus, where these are given as concrete codes--as you say--without having even DISCUSSED them first.

THAT is one of my biggest problems with religion, and with the Abrahamic Religions in particular, especially in contrast with philosophy, atheism, and science, all of which have been a sort of three-pronged exploration of humanity and life, the universe, and everything opposite (or at least sometimes and, seemingly, increasingly opposite) religion and the religious attitude.

The Socratic ethos and "answer" is that there is always more answers to find and discuss and debate, and very little is set in stone.

The Bible's ethos and "answer" is that, indeed, there are concrete Commandments for life, they have in fact been set in stone--literally, in fact--and God's will is to be done, and there's free will, but ultimately, things will go God's way anyway, so there's very little room for freedom if your idea of freedom is not in line with God's vision...

And that's what bothers me--

With Socrates, as I said, you can raise a point, but no one says "This is absolutely and completely correct for all-time" and threatens violence or damnation if you don't agree...

With the Bible, if you do not side with God, you WILL be threatened with violence (literally, see...well, most of history) and you WILL be damned and there's no recourse, you either accept God's will or reject it, full-stop.

That's what I meant--so I didn't misread Socrates--or Plato's representation of Socrates--but perhaps I should have phrased and framed my statement a bit differently.

"I actually think Jesus and Socrates had this in common. Jesus also asked and raised many questions, often without supplying the answers, and he was also a gadfly who stung the rich, the rulers, and the self-satisfied."

That's of course a common association, Jesus and Socrates...

But I DO recall Jesus saying, again, something along the lines of "The path to Heaven is through me," something to that effect, and certainly he's TREATED as the be all and end all by many Christians today, whereas you'll never meet an intellectual or author or speaker who says that of Socrates, the closest I can recall anyone ever saying something to that effect was someone once saying "All philosophy since Plato is just one long footnote," with Plato having obviously written the Socrates persona we generally think of when we consider the person. That being said, 1. That statement doesn't make a grandiose, "Heaven through Me" claim, as is the case with Jesus and his followers today, 2. It's more a historical claim than anything, noting how just about every philosopher since Plato traces back to him in some way, and 3. Doesn't even say that this is a good thing, whereas the Jesus claim, by contrast, is clearly a "My way is correct" claim.

So in terms of their lives...
And their personas...
And their public images of being ragged and misunderstood and tragically killed...
And their legacy being so large to those they left behind...

In that sense, yes, there's a definite corollary between the two.

But unless you can prove me wrong and show me Jesus DIDN'T make claims that the path to salvation was through him (and thus his way was *the* way) I would maintain that in terms of their end message they're very different.

Another interesting difference:

It's often maintained that Jesus "died for our sins"...
Whereas Socrates, on his deathbed, makes it very clear he doesn't see himself as dying for anyone or anything but himself, he's just accepting the consequences of his actions, however unjust he feels they are, and urges everyone to do the same, and to take responsibility for themselves...which I much say is a more inspirational way to go than by saying "I died for your sins, so remember me every day and praise me...and you're responsible for yourself, except for the fact that I ultimately rule over you."

Which is a last irony I'll point out--

Jesus, supposedly so very in tune with the poor and anti-Empire, ultimately is to become King over us all--he/God, depending on your theological interpretation--in a Kingdom of Heaven...not a Republic or Democracy of Heaven, but a Kingdom...and yet this elitist end to a supposedly-humble person is treated as divine...

Socrates, by contrast, also faced an empire and also ran afoul of it and also was no fan of imperialism, yet he stays consistent and never says that there'll be a Kingdom of Philosophy with himself as king, he genuinely was anti-empire and lived and died that way, the most that can be said against that is "The Republic," but that's generally considered to be Plato's idea for Philosopher Kings, not Socrates'.

So for as much as it may upset the jury here...

I'd have to say Socrates seems genuine where Jesus, in this regard at least, seems something of a hypocrite.

^After all, when you spurn riches on Earth, and THEN describe your Kingship and Kingdom of Heaven as essentially being Heavenly Riches and Heavenly Wealth...

Well, there's something hypocritical there, or so it seems to me.

It may be said "Heaven's Riches are qualitatively better or different than the shallowness of Earthly Riches, so Jesus is arguing for quality over quantity, as it were," to which I'd respond:

1. You don't know Heavenly Riches are qualitatively better, and so have no basis for that claim, and
2. There still seems something hollow and misleading to me about telling people to eschew one form of riches for another, even if it's for quality's sake, as all that makes the difference here is the world "Heavenly" in front of it, and that presumes Heaven to even exist, for which there is no proof, so really, Jesus' claim is ultimately unverifiable, and I'd maintain that when you're so well-known for spurning riches, endorsing a different kind of riches seems a bit off-point. It may be said "You're taking 'riches' too literally here," to which I refer you to my earlier rationale as to why I don't believe you can or should take the Bible metaphorically and, indeed, even if you do, you must take it as metaphor and myth full-stop, as to say some is metaphor and some is fact is cherry-picking what you yourself want to be fact and metaphor in the text, it seems.

obiwanobiwan, do you remember your Nietzsche?

"Socrates was a misunderstanding; the whole improvement-morality, including the Christian, was a misunderstanding. The most blinding daylight; rationality at any price; life, bright, cold, cautious, conscious, without instinct, in opposition to the instincts -- all this too was a mere disease, another disease, and by no means a return to "virtue," to "health," to happiness. To have to fight the instincts -- that is the formula of decadence: as long as life is ascending, happiness equals instinct."

Old Friedrich is always a breath of fresh air.

Obi, Jesus paid the price to set men free. We collectively sold (and sell) our birthright and are under bondage to sin and evil in this life. Player and Obi, Jesus was very clear about one thing: He didn't say that we needed him to follow the path, know the truth, or live the life; he said he WAS the path, and the TRUTH, and the LIFE, and that nobody could come to God the Father except through him. He was unlike any other teacher because he taught based on his own authority and didn't need to appeal to anyone else's teachings, although he did point out repeatedly how the Old Testament prophetic writings pointed to him.

Today's Bible reading is Acts Chapter 4--
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=4&v=1&t=NLT
Full text:
Acts 4
New Living Translation (NLT)

Peter and John before the Council
4 While Peter and John were speaking to the people, they were confronted by the priests, the captain of the Temple guard, and some of the Sadducees. 2 These leaders were very disturbed that Peter and John were teaching the people that through Jesus there is a resurrection of the dead. 3 They arrested them and, since it was already evening, put them in jail until morning. 4 But many of the people who heard their message believed it, so the number of believers now totaled about 5,000 men, not counting women and children.[a]

5 The next day the council of all the rulers and elders and teachers of religious law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, along with Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and other relatives of the high priest. 7 They brought in the two disciples and demanded, “By what power, or in whose name, have you done this?”

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of our people, 9 are we being questioned today because we’ve done a good deed for a crippled man? Do you want to know how he was healed? 10 Let me clearly state to all of you and to all the people of Israel that he was healed by the powerful name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene,[b] the man you crucified but whom God raised from the dead. 11 For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says,

‘The stone that you builders rejected
has now become the cornerstone.’[c]

12 There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”

13 The members of the council were amazed when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, for they could see that they were ordinary men with no special training in the Scriptures. They also recognized them as men who had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing right there among them, there was nothing the council could say. 15 So they ordered Peter and John out of the council chamber[d] and conferred among themselves.

16 “What should we do with these men?” they asked each other. “We can’t deny that they have performed a miraculous sign, and everybody in Jerusalem knows about it. 17 But to keep them from spreading their propaganda any further, we must warn them not to speak to anyone in Jesus’ name again.” 18 So they called the apostles back in and commanded them never again to speak or teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John replied, “Do you think God wants us to obey you rather than him? 20 We cannot stop telling about everything we have seen and heard.”

21 The council then threatened them further, but they finally let them go because they didn’t know how to punish them without starting a riot. For everyone was praising God 22 for this miraculous sign—the healing of a man who had been lame for more than forty years.
The Believers Pray for Courage

23 As soon as they were freed, Peter and John returned to the other believers and told them what the leading priests and elders had said. 24 When they heard the report, all the believers lifted their voices together in prayer to God: “O Sovereign Lord, Creator of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them— 25 you spoke long ago by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant, saying,

‘Why were the nations so angry?
Why did they waste their time with futile plans?
26 The kings of the earth prepared for battle;
the rulers gathered together
against the Lord
and against his Messiah.’[e]

27 “In fact, this has happened here in this very city! For Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate the governor, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all united against Jesus, your holy servant, whom you anointed. 28 But everything they did was determined beforehand according to your will. 29 And now, O Lord, hear their threats, and give us, your servants, great boldness in preaching your word. 30 Stretch out your hand with healing power; may miraculous signs and wonders be done through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

31 After this prayer, the meeting place shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. Then they preached the word of God with boldness.
The Believers Share Their Possessions

32 All the believers were united in heart and mind. And they felt that what they owned was not their own, so they shared everything they had. 33 The apostles testified powerfully to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and God’s great blessing was upon them all. 34 There were no needy people among them, because those who owned land or houses would sell them 35 and bring the money to the apostles to give to those in need.

36 For instance, there was Joseph, the one the apostles nicknamed Barnabas (which means “Son of Encouragement”). He was from the tribe of Levi and came from the island of Cyprus. 37 He sold a field he owned and brought the money to the apostles.
Footnotes:

1. Acts 4:4 Greek 5,000 adult males.
2. Acts 4:10 Or Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
3. Acts 4:11 Ps 118:22.
4. Acts 4:15 Greek the Sanhedrin.
5. Acts 4:26 Or his anointed one; or his Christ. Ps 2:1-2.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%204&version=NLT

Acts are fanfics of Gospels.

And actually, although it IS posting three times in a row, to sum something up VERY quickly that I think needs to be said, and can be said briefly--

The above issue, with Jesus and Heavenly vs. Earthly riches, isn't a big example of this, but it is an example nonetheless of an issue that I feel plagues this discussion:

The fact that God, Heaven, Jesus, the Bible, and Religion in general ALL seem to have a different standard applied to them in these discussions than would be the case anywhere else, but ONLY when it's convenient.

Case in point--

Again, to point to my child/flame analogy in regards to the Garden of Eden, if a REAL parent did the equivalent of what God does, we would not deem it moral.

If a REAL person ordered the genocide of the Amalekites and not God, we would not argue that it was moral.

If a REAL person, today, told us they were the Son of God or that they saw a burning bush that spoke to them or that they gathered two of every species known to man in one boat, we'd either laugh this person off or, if they persisted, show them to the closest mental institution.

Fantastic claims call for fantastic evidence--and we very rarely, if ever, as a species produce such evidence, which is why conspiracy theories of a grandiose nature are laughed off, and why Scientology and, to a lesser extent (and at the risk of possibly throwing a stone too far here) Mormonism are often laughed off as odd ideologies or else looked upon with a degree of disdain.

Regarding Scientology, I don't think I have to go further, so to make this point and wrap up with Mormonism--

I know Mormons.
I'm not attacking Mormons as people here.
They're great people, very kind, never heard these people that I know say a bad word against anyone.

What I AM saying is:

When they tell me Native Americans are "real" Jews--I scoff.
Everyone does.
When I read the story that alleges Joseph Smith found these plates, I scoff.
Everyone does.
When I hear that, until 1978, Mormonism's doctrine treated blacks as the descendants of fallen, evil angels and thus black people are descended from evil, I am infuriated.
Everyone else is as well.
When I hear about the Mormon attitude towards polygamy, I am put off by it, to say the least.
Everyone else is as well.
When I hear about the Mormon attitude towards gays, I am enraged.
Everyone (that I'd consider worth speaking to) is as well.
When I hear of Mormons "converting" the deceased of other religions postmortem, I am disgusted.
Everyone else is as well.
When I hear about the Book of Mormon's claiming that the Garden of Eden was or is located in America, I wonder just how far this book can push it.
Everyone does the same.

And on and on.

Now, to be clear--I DO NOT do this to attack Mormons, again, as a people, and NOT as a religion by itself, my point is:

I can make such a list for ANY RELIGION.

For Catholicism, Protestantism, for Jews, for Shiites, Sunnis, for Hindu sects, any religion, I can compile such a list.

My point is simply this--

WE ALLOW such transgressions in the case of ALL religions, despite how much they may offend our sensibilities or even our rights as a people, for one reason--

FAITH.

Somehow, a group claiming to be acting "on faith" or "in the name of God" or following a "holy text" makes such claims more palatable and moral transgressions more forgivable.

Or so it would seem.

Again--if a SECULAR person made such claims, or acted in such a manner, they would not receive the same treatment, it's ONLY when you use those magic words "God," "Jesus," "Bible," and most importantly of all, "FAITH" that you can get away with anything even murder (in some cases, and n some countries, even literally, on that point.)

Why do I use Mormonism as an example, then?
Why not Scientology, which I mentioned before?
Scientology doesn't have the same acceptance, it's widely treated as a wicked cult.
Why?
Partly because it lacks those magical words--God, Jesus, Bible, and Faith; it has the last one, but in a nation founded by Puritans and an a West steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions, if you come to a new belief, you'd better have "God" in it, as aside from Buddhism and Hinduism, we don't seem to recognize "faith" without "God."

Which is why I bring up Mormonism--not because it's claims are any more or less absurd than those of any other religion, and not because it's actions are more or less immoral than those of any other religion, but simply because it's one of the newest religions and is in a very interesting place:

Somewhat "accepted," in that we have a Mormon Presidential nominee right now, and partially still considered "fringe" or "ridiculous" enough that, when I mention the Native Americans being "Jews" or the Garden of Eden being in America, most of us can have a good laugh, and do, it's still "OK"...

Whereas if you wanted to do the same with OTHER religions--NOW you're in trouble.

Want to poke fun at Catholicism, or criticize it?
Do so at your own risk--an Italian singer near the Vatican almost was arrested and sent to jail for daring to speak out against the Vatican...in the 21st century, in Italy, a Western Democracy.

Want to draw Muhammad like that cartoonist?
Be prepared for the same reception and threats as that cartoonist got...because free speech is OK in Islam, just as long as it doesn't conflict or disagree with Islam, of course.

But we permit these incidents because of "faith."

In the case of "faith," you can't win a rational argument, because "faith" automatically makes whatever the Bible or Torah or Koran says correct.

All the facts can (and often are) be against those scriptures...but faith will find a way to make it OK, and what's more, faith will find a way to justify otherwise unspeakable actions.

Suicide bombings?
Justified by faith (a radical form of that faith, but one that CAN be defended textually.)
Genocide throughout the ages and in the Bible?
Justified by faith.
Slavery?
Justified by faith.
Not granting Gays and Lesbians equal rights?
Justified by faith (and a certain faith's definition of marriage.)
God committing acts that would be unspeakable if anyone ELSE did them?
Justified by faith.

And on and on.

And that's why I use Mormonism as an example--because it's a unique case of something being justified and yet, somehow, not justified...

Scientology we all write off, it's a cult, technically a "religion," but any sane person deems it a cult and a disgusting one at that...and it doesn't have those magic words...

But Mormonism DOES, and so while IT TOO makes such outlandish claims that we laugh...the general public somehow allows some of it to pass and be respected to a certain extent, and if you doubt that, again, consider that a Mormon, someone who, if he is true to his faith, believes that Ancient Jews built ships, sailed to the New World, and are the Native Americans (insulting two minorities at once, and again, that's without getting into all the racism that surrounds Mormonism and blacks until the late 1970s) could very possibly win the Presidency of the United States and receive the nuclear launch codes for the country.

Imagine us doing that with a Scientologist.
The difference?
After all, both make outrageous, outlandish, in-no-way-possible claims?
Native American Jews and Thetans?
The difference?
Mormonism was smart enough to keep God in the picture...whereas Xenu just doesn't play with the American voters (can't imagine why...)

SOMEHOW the outlandishness and even racism or rights violations of a group, thus, can be validated, given two things:

Enough time to hit the mainstream consciousness, and those magic words, "God," "Jesus," "Bible," and "Faith."

AGAIN, in closing, to be sure I have this straight--

I DO NOT SAY THIS TO PICK ON MORMONS AS INDIVIDUALS, OR ATTACK THEIR FAITH IN ISOLATION.

AGAIN, I CAN MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT, I MAINTAIN, FOR ANY OR NEARLY ANY RELIGION IN THE ABRAHAMIC VEIN.

"No amount of belief makes something a fact" --James Randi

Yet, when belief and faith precede logic, the latter services the former in the argument, and belief and faith can twist logic any way it sees fit to make ideals fit in the name of faith, where in ANY OTHER CASE, with the name "God" or "Jesus" or "Bible" not attached, such an action would be considered reprehensible--at best.

"obiwanobiwan, do you remember your Nietzsche?

"Socrates was a misunderstanding; the whole improvement-morality, including the Christian, was a misunderstanding. The most blinding daylight; rationality at any price; life, bright, cold, cautious, conscious, without instinct, in opposition to the instincts -- all this too was a mere disease, another disease, and by no means a return to "virtue," to "health," to happiness. To have to fight the instincts -- that is the formula of decadence: as long as life is ascending, happiness equals instinct."

Old Friedrich is always a breath of fresh air."

Yes, I remember his disagreeing with Socrates--

I disagree with him there. :)

I actually think that's one of Nietzsche's worst points, especially as he praises the Greeks so heavily in other areas...

In any case--I agree with some great ideas of Nietzsche's, and he was a great thinker--

But Human, All Too Human, and not correct about everything...

And so obiwanobiwan disagrees with Nietzsche on Socrates, shocking as that may seem. ;)

"And so obiwanobiwan disagrees with Nietzsche on Socrates, shocking as that may seem. ;)"

Which means Obiwan either doesn't comprehend or doesn't agree with Nietzsche at all on anything.

"especially as he praises the Greeks so heavily in other areas..."

Yes, the pre-Socratics. There's a reason for that. Plato was to Greek philosophy what the Abrahamics are to religion.

"Old Friedrich is always a breath of fresh air."

People who love Nietzsche should scare the shit out of normal people everywhere.

"Which means Obiwan either doesn't comprehend or doesn't agree with Nietzsche at all on anything."

OR it means, for a writer as tangental and rant-prone as Nietzsche, that I can agree with Nietzsche on, say, his views regarding Master and Slave Morality, and his account of the Genealogy of Morals, and so on...

But I don't have to agree with him on everything, and I don't.

It's not an all-or-nothing deal, especially with Nietzsche--

He's not one of those philosophers who lays out a system like Spinoza, where if you agree with some sections it seems to follow you should logically agree with others.

He threw different ideas out there, in some cases connecting them, and as a result, he has a wide variety of views, but no one, singular system...

As a result, I can say I agree with Nietzsche's views on religion and Master Slave Morality and his celebration of Greek drama...

While also feeling that his views on politics are, with some exceptions, largely either incoherent or else things I disagree with, and that I'd additionally disagree with his assessment of Socrates.

(And I'd disagree with his belief that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays, but of course that's another story.)

And I can do that without rejecting Nietzsche entirely.

It's NOT all or nothing, Putin.

"People who love Nietzsche should scare the shit out of normal people everywhere."

People who push for a zero state should scare the shit out of normal people everywhere.

(And yes, I know Nietzsche's anti-state and an anarchist, except when he pushes for other forms of government...

Which is why I disagree there or, to be more accurate, I think his views there are either unfeasible, contradictory, or both, but in any case, he's anti-state and not pro zero-state, so there's that, at least...I'll take that over Marx's Anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, zero-state ambitions...of all the thinkers we bring up here regularly, Marx might be the one I despise the most, if any one thinker's philosophy could possibly rival my extreme dislike for the Bible...it might very Well be Marx's, I cannot think of a single good viewpoint that he has that is both uniquely his own and doesn't carry with it some disgusting element.)

I don't have a clue what you're on about the 'zero state'.

It's pretty difficult to agree with Nietzsche about the genealogy of morals and disagree with him about Plato. He calls Christianity 'Platonism for the People', for christ's sake.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/preface.htm

"Marx might be the one I despise the most, if any one thinker's philosophy could possibly rival my extreme dislike for the Bible.."

What have you read of Marx? I doubt you've read anything.

"What have you read of Marx? I doubt you've read anything."

Obiwanobiwan, don't go there.

"I'll take that over Marx's Anti-Semitic"

Hilarious. You admire the bff of Wagner but call Marx (who was Jewish) an anti-Semite, when no philosophy has done more for Jewish liberation than Marxism! And who honored and admired Nietzsche? National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy. Mussolini read and loved everything Nietzsche ever wrote. Self loathing has no bounds, I guess.