An Objective Look at Paul’s Soteriology
Based to the number of Gospel tracts I have seen over the past forty years, the theology of Paul (especially as presented in the Book of Romans) is used almost exclusively to teach the doctrine of salvation. However, Paul’s concept of soteriology has a number of major problems!
According to Paul’s doctrine of Original Sin, sin entered in to the world by one man (Adam) and spread throughout to the entire human race as a result of the Fall (Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—Romans 5:12). Below, I have considered a number of major problems with Paul’s theology before, as well as after the fact, of the Fall in Eden:
A. Fact is, both Adam and Eve were going to die anyway and the gods (“Us”) of the Garden of Eden wanted an terminus for Adam and Eve ending in their deaths. According to the text, what the gods feared the most was, that after the humans ate of the Tree of Knowledge, they would next eat of the Tree of Life and live forever as gods themselves. “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— (Genesis 3:22) In light of this, Paul’s theology of Original Sin fails to take into account that death was already part of both the human and the animal world since, without death - being a natural process from disease - the population of both humans and animals would have quickly exceeded the small limitations of the Garden of Eden. This fact is completely missed by Paul as he never considered the Tree of Life in his theology!
B. Paul’s theology fails to take into consideration the fact that God lied and the serpent told the truth that in the same day you eat of it, you shall surly die.” Thus, God himself displayed the vices of sin in untruthfulness. “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2 16 – 17)
This is re-enforced by Eve: 2 “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.” (Genesis 3: 2-3)
But both divine and human statements are countered by the talking serpent : 4 “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’” (Genesis 3: 4 – 5)
C. Paul’s theology would have had a sinless Jesus living forever. In fact, if the Romans had not killed Jesus, who being without Original Sin to caused his natural death (the Biblical three score and ten or 70 years old), Jesus would still be walking and healing among us even today at 2,000 years old (Note: In the Sumerian King List we regularly find kings living tens of thousands of years, so a 2,000 year old Jesus is nothing!).
D. According to Paul’s theology, if the Romans had not had killed Jesus by bleeding him in crucifixion (shedding his blood in atonement), someone would have had to step up to the plate and do the world a salvation favor by causing Jesus enough bodily trauma to cause massive bleeding ending in his death within minutes (The same amount to time for an animal slain with its throat cut on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple to bleed to death. Paul totally fails to understand that suffering is NOT part of animal atonement in Temple sacrifices!)
E. If we take Paul’s theology at face value, only 50% of salvation was done on Jesus’ part, but the other 50% was given to Christianity by the Romans who basically did the world a favor by killing Jesus. In light of this fact, Christians might want to consider making Judas a saint or honoring Pilate as part of their salvation process.
F. Finally, the statements in Genesis proves that animals can reason by the fact in that they understood language such as Hebrew “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” (Genesis 2: 19), plus the fact that the serpent could think and reason too and was cursed in the Fall, there needs to be a savior and salvation for animals too. (In the Book or Revelation, we read about animals in Heaven).
In the final analysis, Jewish theology is superior to Christian doctrine by the simple reason it avoids Paul’s blunders!
According to Paul’s doctrine of Original Sin, sin entered in to the world by one man (Adam) and spread throughout to the entire human race as a result of the Fall (Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—Romans 5:12). Below, I have considered a number of major problems with Paul’s theology before, as well as after the fact, of the Fall in Eden:
A. Fact is, both Adam and Eve were going to die anyway and the gods (“Us”) of the Garden of Eden wanted an terminus for Adam and Eve ending in their deaths. According to the text, what the gods feared the most was, that after the humans ate of the Tree of Knowledge, they would next eat of the Tree of Life and live forever as gods themselves. “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— (Genesis 3:22) In light of this, Paul’s theology of Original Sin fails to take into account that death was already part of both the human and the animal world since, without death - being a natural process from disease - the population of both humans and animals would have quickly exceeded the small limitations of the Garden of Eden. This fact is completely missed by Paul as he never considered the Tree of Life in his theology!
B. Paul’s theology fails to take into consideration the fact that God lied and the serpent told the truth that in the same day you eat of it, you shall surly die.” Thus, God himself displayed the vices of sin in untruthfulness. “The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2 16 – 17)
This is re-enforced by Eve: 2 “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.” (Genesis 3: 2-3)
But both divine and human statements are countered by the talking serpent : 4 “The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’” (Genesis 3: 4 – 5)
C. Paul’s theology would have had a sinless Jesus living forever. In fact, if the Romans had not killed Jesus, who being without Original Sin to caused his natural death (the Biblical three score and ten or 70 years old), Jesus would still be walking and healing among us even today at 2,000 years old (Note: In the Sumerian King List we regularly find kings living tens of thousands of years, so a 2,000 year old Jesus is nothing!).
D. According to Paul’s theology, if the Romans had not had killed Jesus by bleeding him in crucifixion (shedding his blood in atonement), someone would have had to step up to the plate and do the world a salvation favor by causing Jesus enough bodily trauma to cause massive bleeding ending in his death within minutes (The same amount to time for an animal slain with its throat cut on the altar of the Jerusalem Temple to bleed to death. Paul totally fails to understand that suffering is NOT part of animal atonement in Temple sacrifices!)
E. If we take Paul’s theology at face value, only 50% of salvation was done on Jesus’ part, but the other 50% was given to Christianity by the Romans who basically did the world a favor by killing Jesus. In light of this fact, Christians might want to consider making Judas a saint or honoring Pilate as part of their salvation process.
F. Finally, the statements in Genesis proves that animals can reason by the fact in that they understood language such as Hebrew “Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” (Genesis 2: 19), plus the fact that the serpent could think and reason too and was cursed in the Fall, there needs to be a savior and salvation for animals too. (In the Book or Revelation, we read about animals in Heaven).
In the final analysis, Jewish theology is superior to Christian doctrine by the simple reason it avoids Paul’s blunders!
16 comments:
A. Well, your argument is totally irrelevant here. The Christians and many other religion, as you may know, believe that God can choose to do whatever he wants to. If the Gospel explains that God said that they may live forever, as long as they did not disobey his one command, it is fact if you are a believer. So their is no basis for argument here. Set aside your pre-concieved notions and your personal agenda. If all religions do this, as they should, we may one day live in peace. Another flaw that I found in your argument was who said that Adam and Eve had to reproduce. When God found out that they had eaten from the tree he presented them with the pain of childbirth. Remember that this was after they had eaten from the tree, so according to the bible they were not able to have kids beforehand. By presenting this argument YOU have come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are real people and you have taken the bible literally and not as a moral guide presented from God created by PEOPLE. By the way, the reason why most people die is not because of "old age" or disease, it is because the Human body no can longer provide its cells with enough oxygen. This usually happens around the seventies and is more commonly know as a natural death.
2. What are you talking about. AHHHHHH. Seriously, the serpent represented sin and was trying to convince Eve to eat from the tree that she was told not to eat from. So you are agreeing with the snake and you think that the snake was telling the truth while God was lying. Hmmmm that makes no sense because once they ate from the tree their eternal life was taken from them, they became evident of their nakedness, they were given the pain of childbirth and they were kicked out of the garden of Eden. They did die eventually after all of this was proclaimed by God. So maybe I am not understanding your logic but it truly doesn't make sense, with all due respect.
C. You are missing a huge corner stone of Christianity here my friend. Jesus was born and died upon the cross so that we may be forgiven for our sins. Original sin has nothing to do with life span. It never says that people who are born without original sin must live forever. You can not go back to Adam and Eve and say that they could have lived forever, as long as they obeyed, and relate that back to Jesus. This is because God gave them the chance to live forever. They didn't have the original sin until they themselves created it. Besides if you believe that God knows all and he may do whatever he want then you surely believe that Jesus could have died for us because God made it so.
D. Jesus died on the cross not because he bled out, but because while he was waling to the place where they put the cross he tripped and fell due to exhaustion. This blunt force bruised his heart. Well, when he was placed upon the cross his heart was working over time trying to keep up with the strain that was being placed upon it due to his current condition. It eventually over worked itself and burst. That is why in the bible it says that he called out before he died, he actually felt when he was about to die and had time to cry out his dying lines.It really had little to do with the stab wound other than making his heart work even harder. He was going to die, no one else would have had to "step up to the plate". I also have to disagree with you on the point in which you talk about a sacrifice. This has nothing to do with sacrificing animals. Jesus was doing this for a reason by his own accord. Yes they caught him and so on and so forth but he died for us. This is why he was born.
E. That is totally asinine and belligerent. Seriously guy, wtf. Jesus had 100% to do with what happened. You are not going to honor someone that betrayed him just for the fact that he happened to do something constructive with his death. That logic is sickening and it reminds me why I hate people who take someone else beliefs and turns them into a show just because they do not find the same beauty that the other person has found.
F. Pardon my rudeness, you are an idiot. The statement about naming animals was used metaphorically as a way to explain the beginning of Earth. Obviously man did not name all the animals, we still are discovering them to this day and naming them. The snake was also used metaphorically to represent the devil's work and sin in general. It was not used to represent a physical, talking snake. DUH
Good luck in your future endeavors, but, I strongly suggest that you find a new hobby, or get and education in either religious studies or philosophy before you rant about your illogical arguments just to feed the dull minded masses willing to believe anything that they read.
[I accidentally rejected the following comment from Warren]:
Warren commented:
I've had this argument with a biblical literalist.
Me: Why do we die?
Him: Because man sinned.
Me: How do you know death is the result of man sinning?
Him: Because God said "in the day ye eat thereof ye shall surely die".
Me: But they didn't die that day.
Him: They died spiritually.
Me: Then why do we *physically* die?
Him: I already told you.
Me: (sigh)
I know a lot less about the Bible than you do, clearly! Can I give my comments so that my thinking can be corrected? Please take everything I say with an implicit question mark after everything and not as a bullish challenge.
My overall impression is that these problems don't stem from Paul's theology which could be consistent and well-reasoned but from an attempt to reconcile his teachings with the rest of the bible. If you assume that all writers were aware of and agreed with all other books and that our modern interpretation of them is accurate then I agree, there are big issues. If we must contort our thinking to make Paul's teachings agree with the rest, instead of saying that Paul's thinking was twisted why not consider that Paul may not have accepted the rest (or have had a different interpretation)? If your point is that our modern Original Sin understanding makes little sense when integrated with the whole bible then attacking Paul is distracting.
A - surely the issue here isn't with Paul but with Genesis. You even acknowledge this by saying "he never considered the Tree of Life in his theology". If not, it is hardly a problem if there are inconsistencies between it and his theology.
B - same as A. Problem is with Genesis, not Paul
C - re Jesus living forever. Why is this a problem? The mythicists argue that Paul believed Jesus was an eternal deity and only appeared as a man to trick the demons ("rulers of the world") into killing him. It seems that "C" is only a problem when you mix in the gospels.
D - re "if the Romans had not had killed Jesus by bleeding him in crucifixion (shedding his blood in atonement), someone would have had to step up to the plate [...] Paul totally fails to understand that suffering is NOT part of animal atonement in Temple sacrifices!". Again, I think you're mixing Paul's theology with the gospels. I don't see anything about Jesus suffering in Paul's writing, only in the gospels. I'm not sure I understand the first complaint about having someone else step in.
E - "If we take Paul’s theology at face value, only 50% of salvation was done on Jesus’ part, but the other 50% was given to Christianity by the Romans who basically did the world a favor by killing Jesus. In light of this fact, Christians might want to consider making Judas a saint or honoring Pilate as part of their salvation process." Again, my first reaction is to observe that the mythicists argue that Paul didn't believe Jesus was killed by the Romans but tricked the demons into killing him and thus losing much of their power. No Romans and because it was a trick, no need give them medals. It does sound again like your problem arises when you try to mesh Paul with the gospels. It isn't a flaw with Paul.
F - I think I've missed your point. It sounds like it's an issue with Genesis, not Paul.
If I may add my agreement with Tyro's comment, then I'd like to do that. This post is very good, but I'd say it was more of a problem with fundamentalist theology rather than Paul's theology. Parts of what you say have to do with taking the Bible as a unified whole, which Paul may or may not have done had he been around to see the Bible as said unified whole.
At any rate, the main purpose for my comment was actually just to present an alternate viewpoint to part A. There are some who claim that man was in a sort of "limbo" in the Garden of Eden - the two trees were, in essence, a way of seeing which one he would choose. Would he choose life or death? Thus, before he chose one or the other, he was subjected to neither. Mind you, this only works from a more metaphorical standpoint, but I thought I'd mention it as an alternative. Just because there was no death before sin, doesn't mean that there necessarily was eternal life either. Make sense? No. But it doesn't make any less sense than the viewpoints the fundamentalists hold :)
Tyro, I’m finishing a reply to Stephen G. to post to night.
If the problem is not with Paul, then why attack women and belittle them based on the Genesis account?
Where Tyro, does the doctrine of Original Sin come from? Judaism NEVER believed this dogma. The Christian Orthodox Church NEVER accepted this dogma.
So, assuming Paul was a true Jew, where did he get it? Most modern New Testament scholars feel that, not only did Paul invent Christianity, but he concocted the Original Sin idea from intertestamental literature such as the Wisdom of Solomon.
I don’t understand your defense of Paul. Judaism does not formulate any major theological dogmas the first 3 chapters of Genesis as Christianity does, so why is it always the Hebrew Bible’s problem and not Paul’s?
If Paul has no theological problems, then why did the Jesus' first followers such as Peter, James reject his message and his first disciples leave him?
Hi there!
Link.
Bye there!
Harry,
If the problem is not with Paul, then why attack women and belittle them based on the Genesis account?
I'm with you on that one but just as people today can find passages they like and ignore others, I don't see why we need to say Paul accepted everything in Genesis or thought it was literal.
Where Tyro, does the doctrine of Original Sin come from? Judaism NEVER believed this dogma. The Christian Orthodox Church NEVER accepted this dogma.
Well, you've got me on that one. I don't know enough history or theology to answer questions about where specific teachings came from. Regarding the specific doctrine of Original Sin, it's my understanding that the mythicists say that Paul believed all flesh was dirty, unclean and sinful. This is a property of flesh as being in this, mortal world, separated from godliness. I think this is more a property of our entire world and has been with us since the first man walked, rather than something which we acquired as a curse. (Incidentally, it's for this reason that Jesus was never fully flesh but only took on the likeness or appearance of flesh, since to be fully man would be sinful.)
This is close to, but not identical to, today's conception of Original Sin. I've never looked to see where this teaching originated, I'm sorry. Where did he get this flesh-as-sin notion? I understand that the idea of different spheres or realms was common at the time and Paul adopted it into his teachings.
I don’t understand your defense of Paul. Judaism does not formulate any major theological dogmas the first 3 chapters of Genesis as Christianity does, so why is it always the Hebrew Bible’s problem and not Paul’s?
I'm not saying the problem is with the Hebrew Bible either! I think the problem is that the two books are inconsistent, but then many of the books of the OT are inconsistent, as are the different gospel accounts. If one book is internally inconsistent then by all means attack it but if we don't assume that Paul took the OT literally (reasonable) and that Paul didn't believe Jesus was historical (perhaps less reasonable, your call), then Paul's teachings make sense and are internally consistent.
If Paul has no theological problems, then why did the Jesus' first followers such as Peter, James reject his message and his first disciples leave him?
I don't know but I can think of many plausible reasons. I'm not trying to say that Paul had no theological problems, I was just sharing my reaction to your list.
If Paul was a biblical literalist then he had problems, but maybe he wasn't.
If Paul did believe Jesus was a real person then he had problems, but maybe he didn't.
Perhaps instead of concluding that Paul's theology was riddled with inconsistencies we should revisit some of our initial assumptions. I do understand that if this post was addressed to biblical literalists or people who believed Jesus was historical (the vast majority, I'll admit) then your points are good and valid. If I mistook your audience, I apologize for my interruption, it was my mistake.
Stephen G.,
What is the difference between a myth and an allegory? Do you know?!
In your comment you talk out of both sides of you mouth. In one sentence you are claiming Genesis is literal: “By presenting this argument YOU have come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are real people and you have taken the bible literally and not as a moral guide presented from God created by PEOPLE.” and then you are defending the Genesis account as a historical fact by trying to rationalize the story as to why, historically I'm wrong.
A. Where in the hell do you get that they (Adam and Eve) were going to live forever? What, then, was the roll of the Tree of Life the gods feared they might eat?!
This statement is totally off the wall and none Biblical: “Another flaw that I found in your argument was who said that Adam and Eve had to reproduce. When God found out that they had eaten from the tree he presented them with the pain of childbirth. Remember that this was after they had eaten from the tree, so according to the bible they were not able to have kids beforehand.”
How, exactly is pain in child birth a sure thing if neither sex (there would have been not purpose for it then) nor reproduction did not exist (Chapter and verse please).
God commands both humans and animals to reproduced, (Genesis 1: 28) and how is Gen. 2: 24 fulfilled unless the two become one via children?
Again you stated: “By presenting this argument YOU have come to the conclusion that Adam and Eve are real people and you have taken the bible literally and not as a moral guide presented from God created by PEOPLE.”
So, I would assume you see Genesis as myth and you explain creation by natural evolution.
B. Stephen G., any literate person reading the text can see the serpent told the truth. I quoted the Biblical text directly while you must apologetically defend Christian theology. Since the New Testament writers (and Jesus) thought the serpent was Satan, I guess you do too!
“Seriously, the serpent represented sin and was trying to convince Eve to eat from the tree that she was told not to eat from.” Where did you get this from…a sermon by Billy Graham?
C. Did you not read my quote from Paul? (Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—Romans 5:12) So, by simple logic, if Jesus did not have any Original Sin (Virgin Birth / God in flesh), Paul’s theology of Romans 5: 12 would be a fact for Jesus who life is the only exception to any sin.
Again, you are trying so hard to defend Christian theology your gloss over the hard cold facts.
Your theological statement “Besides if you believe that God knows all and he may do whatever he want then you surely believe that Jesus could have died for us because God made it so.” is nothing but the evolutionary grow of Christian theology. The Semitic Yahweh is not the Greek Theos!
Fact is, Jesus WAS NOT the perfect sacrifice since: 1. Torture is not part of any Hebrew sacrifice. Paul read Jesus into this system.
2. Human sacrifice is condemned by the latter prophets. So why did God reverse himself for Jesus? Again, Jesus was read into the place a sacrifice to give his death as a rebel religious meaning.
Your “This has nothing to do with sacrificing animals. Jesus was doing this for a reason by his own accord. Yes they caught him and so on and so forth but he died for us. This is why he was born.” is totally latter Christian theology read into this event.
You swing back and forth. In one paragraph you claim (theologically) Jesus born to die for sin (above). Then in this paragraph, you condemn those who did God the honor; that is, what God really wanted. Even in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus praises Judas for doing God’s will and states that only Judas really understands what must be done!
It’s people like you Stephen G. who have murdered the Jews for thousands of years blaming them just as the Gospel of Matt. And John does. You seem to be just a brain washed simple minded Baptist.
Your faith in Christian theology has blinded your objective reading of Genesis 2 “18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.”
Based on verse 20, Adam could have chosen a sheep to mate with. God lined them up and marched them before Adam for both names and possible mates for him; but reading this context is entirely against your Christian theology.
Stephen G. is the blinded Christian idiot who will not face the text!
Here’s another of your contradictory stupid comments: “Obviously man did not name all the animals, we still are discovering them to this day and naming them.” Genesis says he named them, but you argue NO! The Bible is Allegory when you want it to be and fact when you want it to be.
So Adam and Eve’s action in Genesis 1-3 are all allegory, but the Gospels are hard core facts. Please Stephen G.; tell me how you know this!!
Oh, I see, It’s allegory when the Biblical text conflicts with your Christian theology, but fact when its deals with Jesus!
So, Genesis allegory, then Jesus’ death on the cross for sins, allegory; Heaven, allegory, Jesus living in a Christian’s heart is one hell of an allegory; unsaved sinner burn in Hell, allegory; Jesus was God incarnate, allegory; Satan and demons, allegory; Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead, allegory; Jesus coming back to planet earth again, allegory; God lives in Heaven, allegory; Paul invented Christianity, FACT; Atheism is true, FACT!
Finally, you claimed: “The snake was also used metaphorically to represent the devil's work and sin in general. It was not used to represent a physical, talking snake. DUH” And just where the hell in the Bible did you conjure up this lame-brain theology?
After reading your allegory here, metaphor there, fact over there Bible reading, I can say with truthful glee: I’m glad I left the Christian nut house know as the Church!!
Hello Stephan and Harry:
Regarding the serpent in Gen. 3, I think this story is a remnant of an Elohimist religious tradition related to "Nehush'tan" worship. In Numbers 21:9 is the story of Moses holding up the bronze serpent for snake bite relief, and in 2 Kings 21:1-4 is the story of "Hezeki'ah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah..." who "...broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it; it was called Nehush'tan."
When Ezra and his priestly pose wrote and edited as the Deuteronomic editor the OT texts, they likely included the Gen. 3 serpent story to provide a basis for the Numbers 21 and 2 Kings 21 stories.
I arrived at this thesis from listening to Dr. Robert M. Price's podcasted lectures on Genesis. Price makes a fair case that the Gen. 3 serpent is a reference to Nehush'tan.
Robert Bumbalough,
Thanks for this very logical reason behind this Genesis account. The Bible (Hebrew Bible) is indeed a thoroughly edited and refined piece of ancient polytheistic literature. I certainty appreciate your sound and intelligent input here.
In many of my posts, I play the devils advocate since most evangelical Christians are also Biblical literalist. I enjoy carrying Christian theology out to it logical, but radical and wild conclusions.
Modern Christian theology is nothing more than the training wheels on a wild Biblical text which simply can not stand on its own.
An Objective Look?
Hardly.
But by all means, keep flailing away. Straw men fall quite readily. After all that’s what they’re made for…another one bites the dust…Harry…our hero….
amused,
Rick
Rick,
It’s good to see the Sunday school mentality is alive and well in your head.
The reason no one has found the body of Jesus yet is because he is living at the North Pole with Santa!
Harry: your so wrong. Jesus does not live at the North Pole, but he does live at 80122 South Park Avenue in South Park, Colorado.
Jesus was killed while trying to rescue Santa from those darn Iraqis. But five years later he was resurrected for the really big South Park Easter special show. But don't worry, being dead did not hamper his carpentry skills in the least.
Wiki Link
Thanks Robert! Now I remember the South Park episode Red Sleigh Down. What a blast. That’s the show where Jesus went to Iraq “packing heat” and Christianity beat the shit out of Islam! Now that's a sermon by itself!
I seriously think if our commenter Rick watches South Park he would really see exactly how the real incarnate Jesus would act...kicking ass!
If Christians don’t think God enjoys comedy, they need to watch South Park.
BTW: I heard the difference between a fundamentalist preacher and a liberal preacher is this:
The fundamentalist preacher tells his congregation: “Do this and you will go to Hell!”
The liberal preacher tells his congregation: “Do this!” And they tell him to “Go to Hell!”
Good Morning Friends
Hi Harry. Yesterday I heard a story where a fundy Baptist Church congregation continuously prayed for the local watering hole to burn down. (Apparently they were against alcohol consumption.) By and by lightning struck the building housing the saloon, and it burned. The story goes that the bar's owner is now suing the church. The person who told me the story did so in an effort to defend Christianity. They actually think God would answer the temperatist's prayers. That is an example of a strong delusion.
Last night's tornadoes that ripped up the town in Oklahoma were, like the lightning strike, an alleged act of God. Those who's homes were spared accredit the "miracle" to divine intervention. In so doing, they credit the destruction to the alleged Deity, for if God was Johnny on the spot to save one guy's home, he was then there to inflict destruction on the property and lives of those who suffered. The ancients understood there is no good evil dichotomy in their sacred myth.
Isa 45:7 "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things."
So yes, if Jesus were God and were alive, he'd be a mean nasty SoB that you would not want to F with. Christians are funny. They pick only the nice bits and ignore the hard parts.
Thanks again Robert.
I enjoy your great insights into Christianity to counter the simple-minded and usually non-Biblical faith of the believer.
Post a Comment