jayceeii

  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why atheists are sensitive about the defintion of the term atheist
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2019, 02:56:56 pm »
Disbelief in the actual existence of Thor by theists is not atheism.  Rejecting Thor's existence specifically might be called A-Thorism.  But it's a silly intellectually empty non-sequitur as already noted.
The theists are to be faulted in conceiving of God as a Thor-like Deity, particularly in the warlike nature of the Old Testament, but also as they expect Jesus as a conquering Lord. Not even this basic truth made it into any religion, that the first fruit of power is gentleness. (It comes in inexplicably as the Christians say “gentle Jesus, meek and mild,” just before another rousing chorus of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”) To hear they must be gentle to please God, evidently would’ve brought incredible rage in the humans.

1

Wretch

  • ***
  • 2494 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why atheists are sensitive about the defintion of the term atheist
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2019, 10:21:34 pm »
Was Christ gentle towards the money changers?

Was Christ gentle in his rebukes of the temple leaders?

The idea that all there is to following Christ is meekness and gentleness requires ignoring much of the gospels.

"I've come not to bring peace, but a sword."

2

jayceeii

  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why atheists are sensitive about the defintion of the term atheist
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2019, 10:06:46 am »
Was Christ gentle towards the money changers?

Was Christ gentle in his rebukes of the temple leaders?

The idea that all there is to following Christ is meekness and gentleness requires ignoring much of the gospels.

"I've come not to bring peace, but a sword."
wr: Was Christ gentle towards the money changers?

jc: These types of events were not violent. These are distressing events, leaving the Lord with nightmares. The trouble is the humans are not responding, and so one just wonders sometimes, whether a physical push will help. My question is whether the disciples seeing the Lord in such states, sympathized or understood that it was frustration, not violence. If you think you have seen violence, you might want to wait until Judgment.

wr: Was Christ gentle in his rebukes of the temple leaders?

jc: From the Lord’s perspective this is just stating facts clearly. For twenty years I’ve been issuing similar, and much harsher, statements about the clergy of today. They boast the Lord might walk into their churches, but He knows they’ll get out guns if He does.

wr: The idea that all there is to following Christ is meekness and gentleness requires ignoring much of the gospels.

jc: Yes, the gospels were ambiguous since devils were to be served, not only angels. But can’t you see the impact had Jesus insisted on gentleness between men, telling them frankly that God is enraged over war, with both sides? Had Jesus said such things, the religion would’ve died. Yet God clearly would not want His creatures to be fighting.

wr: "I've come not to bring peace, but a sword."

jc: Jesus is a living extension from the Invisible God, bearing God’s own consciousness. He is thus lifted as a tool by a much larger Mind, intending to express God’s Personality. This remark, and many other remarks from Jesus, shows God knew the long-term effects of His ministry at that time, although from the body Jesus likely did not see this clearly. True to form, men followed through with religious wars, when gentleness is the real way.