Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(07-03-2015 08:19 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So Jesus spilled his blood for our sins, but why did it have to occur the way that myth is portrayed in the gospels?

If Jesus had been born in modern times, he could've went to a blood bank and donated his blood, he could've made many trips to the blood bank over several years and donated a lot of blood in fact. If he really had to die, he could've instructed his disciples to throw him off of a cliff.

I suppose suffering has to be tied into the loss of blood to satisfy god's bizarre pagan fixation with human sacrifice, but how much suffering? Would a needle injected into the arm be enough pain? Or is there something about the metal of the nails that makes his blood spilled extra-special and satisfying?
If that's the case, wouldn't it have worked to simply stab him with a knife or shoot him with a gun? They got metal too, and it would've hurt!

Maybe just an extended period of pain combined with shedding of blood would have satisfied god's requirement, so if Jesus developed a raging case of bloody hemorrhoids, this should meet god's requirements for blood spilled and suffering, all the disciples had to do after Jesus suffering bloody hemorrhoids for 2 or 3 days was stab him with a knife. All of the pagan requirements of blood and suffering would then be satisfied.

And hemorrhoids f****ng hurt!

The punishment in the Bible for sin is... death.

The blood, as it says in Leviticus is... life.

The blood sacrifices of the OT from Adam and Abel down to Malachi, prefigure the blood atonement of the Messiah.

Sin is serious enough to cost a life, and it does and can.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 01:21 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2015 01:24 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(11-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 08:19 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So Jesus spilled his blood for our sins, but why did it have to occur the way that myth is portrayed in the gospels?

If Jesus had been born in modern times, he could've went to a blood bank and donated his blood, he could've made many trips to the blood bank over several years and donated a lot of blood in fact. If he really had to die, he could've instructed his disciples to throw him off of a cliff.

I suppose suffering has to be tied into the loss of blood to satisfy god's bizarre pagan fixation with human sacrifice, but how much suffering? Would a needle injected into the arm be enough pain? Or is there something about the metal of the nails that makes his blood spilled extra-special and satisfying?
If that's the case, wouldn't it have worked to simply stab him with a knife or shoot him with a gun? They got metal too, and it would've hurt!

Maybe just an extended period of pain combined with shedding of blood would have satisfied god's requirement, so if Jesus developed a raging case of bloody hemorrhoids, this should meet god's requirements for blood spilled and suffering, all the disciples had to do after Jesus suffering bloody hemorrhoids for 2 or 3 days was stab him with a knife. All of the pagan requirements of blood and suffering would then be satisfied.

And hemorrhoids f****ng hurt!

The punishment in the Bible for sin is... death.

The blood, as it says in Leviticus is... life.

The blood sacrifices of the OT from Adam and Abel down to Malachi, prefigure the blood atonement of the Messiah.

Sin is serious enough to cost a life, and it does and can.

So if Jesus bled bad enough from hemorrhoids that it killed him, this would have satisfied god's blood quota?

Or blood is not necessary? What if Jesus died from dehydration due to vomiting and diarrhea? Is death the main thing here?

There is a certain ring in the lyrics of Power In The Blood when blood is replaced with puke:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s pow’r in the puke, pow’r in the puke;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful pow’r in the puke.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
Animal sacrifice ( Old Testament ) and human sacrifice ( Jebus ) . What a disgusting religion christianity really is.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Leo's post
11-03-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(11-03-2015 01:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The punishment in the Bible for sin is... death.

The blood, as it says in Leviticus is... life.

The blood sacrifices of the OT from Adam and Abel down to Malachi, prefigure the blood atonement of the Messiah.

Sin is serious enough to cost a life, and it does and can.

So if Jesus bled bad enough from hemorrhoids that it killed him, this would have satisfied god's blood quota?

Or blood is not necessary? What if Jesus died from dehydration due to vomiting and diarrhea? Is death the main thing here?

There is a certain ring in the lyrics of Power In The Blood when blood is replaced with puke:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s pow’r in the puke, pow’r in the puke;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful pow’r in the puke.

Goddammit! Now I have the song Power in the Puke in my head! Sadcryface2

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
12-03-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(11-03-2015 01:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The punishment in the Bible for sin is... death.

The blood, as it says in Leviticus is... life.

The blood sacrifices of the OT from Adam and Abel down to Malachi, prefigure the blood atonement of the Messiah.

Sin is serious enough to cost a life, and it does and can.

So if Jesus bled bad enough from hemorrhoids that it killed him, this would have satisfied god's blood quota?

Or blood is not necessary? What if Jesus died from dehydration due to vomiting and diarrhea? Is death the main thing here?

There is a certain ring in the lyrics of Power In The Blood when blood is replaced with puke:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s pow’r in the puke, pow’r in the puke;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful pow’r in the puke.

Okay, silly man... Smile You are very funny. I too have a sense of humor, you know? DroolingDrooling

By "curious quirk of fate" I read this only this morning in my Bible study:

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2015 03:57 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(11-03-2015 12:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 08:19 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So Jesus spilled his blood for our sins, but why did it have to occur the way that myth is portrayed in the gospels?

If Jesus had been born in modern times, he could've went to a blood bank and donated his blood, he could've made many trips to the blood bank over several years and donated a lot of blood in fact. If he really had to die, he could've instructed his disciples to throw him off of a cliff.

I suppose suffering has to be tied into the loss of blood to satisfy god's bizarre pagan fixation with human sacrifice, but how much suffering? Would a needle injected into the arm be enough pain? Or is there something about the metal of the nails that makes his blood spilled extra-special and satisfying?
If that's the case, wouldn't it have worked to simply stab him with a knife or shoot him with a gun? They got metal too, and it would've hurt!

Maybe just an extended period of pain combined with shedding of blood would have satisfied god's requirement, so if Jesus developed a raging case of bloody hemorrhoids, this should meet god's requirements for blood spilled and suffering, all the disciples had to do after Jesus suffering bloody hemorrhoids for 2 or 3 days was stab him with a knife. All of the pagan requirements of blood and suffering would then be satisfied.

And hemorrhoids f****ng hurt!

The punishment in the Bible for sin is... death.

The blood, as it says in Leviticus is... life.

The blood sacrifices of the OT from Adam and Abel down to Malachi, prefigure the blood atonement of the Messiah.

Sin is serious enough to cost a life, and it does and can.

"The punishment in the Bible for sin is... death."

NO. Sin is an imaginary disease designed to sell you an imaginary cure. Jewish priests invented the idea that sin offended an imaginary God so they could wield power.

Paul , on inventing Christianity, then borrowed the concept...

Paul claimed sin can be something one’s born with, like a birth defect. (http://atheism.about.com/od/thebible/a/o...lsin.htm). This is a concerning idea, as a newborn baby can’t deliberately cause harm, so can’t sin.

Paul is the only New Testament author to discuss this concept of “original sin,” as further articulated by Tertullian of Carthage (AD 150-225) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE.) It’s a nasty notion. People are told they’re basically bad - because they were born. It can make susceptible people dislike themselves, which churches know is good for business.

It can be strongly argued that Paul misunderstood the real nature of sin. Most modern people consider sin a deliberate act that results in harm, usually to another person. Yet Paul proposed sin was an action or thought that upset his God.

Secular humanists know it should be the victim or society who does the forgiving, not a hypothetical and mute God, because people are vindicated, maybe compensated, and the guilty party can perhaps genuinely promise not to repeat the offense. Wrong-doers learn from their mistakes, and society benefits.

Paul bypassed this reparative process by saying that sin was forgiven by having faith in Christ, an unrelated third party, and it was only his imaginary god that did the forgiving.

In turning Christ’s death into a sacrifice that saves souls, Paul sacrificed common sense. He devalued interpersonal relationships and indirectly compromised social harmony. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA55jGyq2C8). (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvv_UM7CYg).

Many of today’s church people, however, like Paul’s idea, as it brings them into the equation. They can cash in by claiming to be the conduit between the sinner and God.



"The blood sacrifices of the OT from Adam and Abel down to Malachi, prefigure the blood atonement of the Messiah."

NO.

The Ridiculous concept of Christ’s Sacrificial Death

It is well accepted that Paul was the first to document the curious concept that a Christ was crucified to save souls from their sins. Christians have made this idea an integral part of their dogma. This begs the question why.

Having the son of God become human, and free the faithful from the guilt and consequences of their sins meant God was no longer a distant impersonal deity, like the character in the Old Testament, but someone with whom people could better identify. Christ was an ally, a great guy, everyone’s friend. Christ would take on your punishment for you, provided you believed in him. Have faith in Christ, and Paul promised people a free pass to salvation. Churches today still push this theme to such an extent that Christians rarely question it. This is why some Christians are so adamant other people start to believe in Jesus; so that their sins can be forgiven and entry into heaven attained.

The whole argument is irrational. Why would the son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father, who was also himself, for the sins of the world? Is not sacrificing anyone a pointless, barbaric act that punishes a scapegoat? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into a heaven, a place that Paul never proved exists? Why would a hypothetical omniscient god, whose existence was also not proven by Paul, buy into this baloney?

This argument may have (somehow) made sense to some people 2000 years ago, yet it can’t survive rational scrutiny today. Amongst modern theologians, there has never been a sound explanation for these ideas, because no sensible rationalization is possible.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2015, 04:35 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
(12-03-2015 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 01:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So if Jesus bled bad enough from hemorrhoids that it killed him, this would have satisfied god's blood quota?

Or blood is not necessary? What if Jesus died from dehydration due to vomiting and diarrhea? Is death the main thing here?

There is a certain ring in the lyrics of Power In The Blood when blood is replaced with puke:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s pow’r in the puke, pow’r in the puke;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful pow’r in the puke.

Okay, silly man... Smile You are very funny. I too have a sense of humor, you know? DroolingDrooling

By "curious quirk of fate" I read this only this morning in my Bible study:

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

I find it curious that an otherwise moderately intelligent man could find this rambling interesting.

Firstly, you have no idea who wrote it (no one knows who wrote Hebrews).

Secondly, it makes no sense. Moses didn't exist. God doesn't exist. And there was no such thing as a second covenant other than in the over imaginative fertile mind of Paul of Tarsus. The passage talks about someone walking around splashing blood over everything and imagining that somehow pacifies and pleases the creator of the universe. Just sit back and have a little think about that for a moment. Would a hypothetical omniscient all powerful god who allegedly created everything on this puny earth really be impressed, or interested in, or worried about what some fucked up desert dwelling illiterate bronze age peasants did with some goat's blood?

Thirdly, why on earth would you imagine that this passage holds any interest or relevance to an audience of rational atheists? You're not in church here. Quoting the Bible might get you some degree of passive bemused acceptance from people sitting in pews, but it just doesn't cut the mustard here. If you want to make some point you've got to do better than this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-03-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
The reason the whole hemorrhoids thing isn't relevant is because the concept of ritual atonement to appease the gods involves the death of a sacrifice -- animal or human, as the case may be. And they generally have to be killed in a specified fashion, one that does not involve hemorrhoids. The alleged majick is not in the blood, but in the ritualistic bloody death of a particular sort of victim via, generally, a slit throat.

We should attack theism's actual thinking rather than what we imagine its thinking to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2015, 08:11 PM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
It does put my oft-stated admonition to "go blow jesus out your ass" into a whole new context, though.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
13-03-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Jesus had hemorrhoids for our sins
Paul did not teach original sin. Romans 5 is clear--despite what Augustine, then others, added. I'm not Catholic and do not hold to the non-biblical, traditional doctrine of original sin. Nor did Paul. Understand Augustine pulled it from a twist of Romans 5 then read Romans 5 for yourself.

Substitutionary atonement is biblical, was promulgated by others than Paul, and explains better the ritual sacrifices in the HB from the shedding of blood at the temple, tabernacle and earlier (animals were killed as far back as to make coverings for Adam and Eve). I see your notes about church leaders cashing in as intercessors, the Reformation did a good job of explaining why that need not be so.

I was quoting Hebrews to answer a post from a TTA member. No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I agree with those conservatives who think it was Paul or perhaps Apollos. However, I also don't know who wrote "I'm rubber, your glue..." but I find the concept compelling, and usually whenever I read TTA posts assaulting my intelligence.

No, I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I can see the clear indications that mistakes weren't made including it in the NT canon. For example, it has more details regarding the necessity of a blood/death atonement, specifically which (covenant, death of a testator as quoted) you skipped entirely in your responses. "Why did I quote it?" asks Mark. Because it adds knowledge regarding the atonement that is clearly lacked at TTA.

And yes, I'm already familiar with atheist objections, none of which are reasoned, to atonement or the idea of God loving you enough to die for you. A benevolent judge once fined a guilty yet contrite man $300. The man had no money and was destined to serve 30 days in prison. The judge, being just, sentenced him to the fine anyway. Being also benevolent, he then paid the man's fine of his own wallet. Yes, God passed the sentence and defined the Law. Yes, sin is obviously powerful and leads to death. But just as I would step in front of a bus for my kids... bu-bu-but I also commissioned the bus driver to drive down the street where my child is crossing has nothing to do with it. WHERE the bus came from, East or West, or where it's going, has nothing to do with my stepping in front of the bus. While you stand there and judge the bus, the driver and the bus commission, you get squashed. Bad call IMO.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: