Malakh7's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Malakh7's Profile › Malakh7's Posts
 Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Reasons The Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense by malakh7(op): 7:31am On Nov 28, 2014 |
[color=orange]Instead of making valid points you go about swearing and cursing. Says a lot about your religion.[/color] 5 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › 10 Reasons The Crucifixion Story Makes No Sense by malakh7(op): 1:52pm On Nov 27, 2014 |
[b][color=orange]I’m afraid that the crucifixion story doesn’t strike me as that big a deal. The Christian will say that death by crucifixion was a horrible, humiliating way to die. That the death of Jesus was a tremendous sacrifice, more noble and selfless than a person sacrificing himself for the benefit of a butterfly. And isn’t it worth praising something that gets us into heaven? Here are ten reasons why I’m unimpressed. 1. Sure death sucks, but why single out this one? Lots of people die. In fact, lots died from crucifixion. The death of one man doesn’t make all the others insignificant. Was Jesus not a man but actually a god? If so, that has yet to be shown. It’s not like this death is dramatically worse than death today. Crucifixion may no longer be a worry, but cancer is. Six hours of agony on the cross is pretty bad, but so is six months of agony from cancer. 2. What about that whole hell thing? An eternity of torment for even a single person makes Jesus’s agony insignificant by comparison, and it counts for nothing when you consider the billions that are apparently going to hell. 3. Jesus didn’t even die. The absurdity of the story, of course, is the resurrection. If Jesus died, there’s no miraculous resurrection, and if there’s a resurrection, there’s no sacrifice through death. Miracle or sacrifice—you can’t have it both ways. The gospels don’t say that he died for our sins but that he had a rough couple of days for our sins. 4. Taking on the sin vs. removal of sin aren’t symmetric. We didn’t do anything to get original sin. We just inherited it from Adam. So why do we have to do anything to get the redemption? If God demands a sacrifice, he got it. That’s enough. Why the requirement to believe to access the solution? 5. The reason behind the sacrifice—mankind’s original sin—makes no sense. Why blame Adam for a moral lapse that he couldn’t even understand? Remember that he hadn’t yet eaten the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so who could blame him when he made a moral mistake? And how can we inherit original sin from Adam? Why blame us for something we didn’t do? That’s not justice, and the Bible agrees: Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin (Deut. 24:16) 6. Jesus made a sacrifice—big deal. Jesus is perfect, so his doing something noble is like water flowing downhill. It’s unremarkable since he’s only acting out his nature. What else would you expect from a perfect being? But imagine if I sacrificed myself for someone. In the right circumstance, I’d risk my life for a stranger—or at least I hope I would. That kind of sacrifice is very different. A selfish, imperfect man acting against his nature to make the ultimate unselfish sacrifice is far more remarkable than a perfect being acting according to his nature, and yet people make sacrifices for others all the time. So why single out the actions of Jesus? Aren’t everyday noble actions by ordinary people more remarkable and laudable? 7. What is left for God to forgive? The Jesus story says that we’ve sinned against God (a debt). Let’s look at two resolutions to this debt. (1) God could forgive the debt of sin. You and I are asked to forgive wrongs done against us, so why can’t God? Some Christians say that to forgive would violate God’s sense of justice, but when one person forgives another’s debt, there’s no violation of justice. For unspecified reasons, God doesn’t like this route. And that leaves (2) where Jesus pays for our sin. But we need to pick 1 or 2, not both. If Jesus paid the debt, there’s no need for God’s forgiveness. There’s no longer anything for God to forgive, since there’s no outstanding debt. Here’s an everyday example: when I pay off my mortgage, the bank doesn’t in addition forgive my debt. There’s no longer a debt to forgive! Why imagine that God must forgive us after he’s already gotten his payment? 8. The Jesus story isn’t even remarkable within mythology. Jesus’s sacrifice was small compared to the Greek god Prometheus, who stole fire from Olympus and gave it to humanity. Zeus discovered the crime and punished Prometheus by chaining him to a rock so that a vulture could eat his liver. Each night, his liver grew back and the next day the vulture would return, day after agonizing day. The gospel story, where Jesus is crucified once and then pops back into existence several days later, is unimpressive by comparison. 9. The Bible itself rejects God’s savage “justice.” This is the 21st century. Must Iron Age customs persist so that we need a human sacrifice? If God loves us deeply and he wants to forgive us, couldn’t he just … forgive us? That’s how we do it, and that’s the lesson we get from the parable of the Prodigal Son where the father forgives the son even after being wronged by him. If that’s the standard of mercy, why can’t God follow it? Since God is so much greater a being than a human, wouldn’t he be that much more understanding and willing to forgive? If we were to twist the Prodigal Son parable to match the crucifixion story, the father might demand that the innocent son be flogged to pay for the crime of the prodigal son. Where’s the logic in that? 10. The entire story is incoherent. Let’s try to stumble through the drunken logic behind the Jesus story. God made mankind imperfect and inherently vulnerable to sin. Living a sinless life is impossible, so hell becomes unavoidable. That is, God creates people knowing for certain that they’re going to deserve eternity in hell when they die. Why create people that he knew would be destined for eternal torment? But don’t worry—God sacrificed Jesus, one of the persons of God (whatever that means), so mankind could go to heaven instead. So God sacrificed himself to himself so we could bypass a rule that God made himself and that God deliberately designed us to never be able to meet? I can’t even understand that; I certainly feel no need to praise God for something so nonsensical. It’s like an abused wife thanking her abuser. We can just as logically curse God for consigning us to hell from birth. Perhaps I can be forgiven for being unimpressed by the crucifixion story. Jesus died for my sins? Tell him I said thanks. (Seen on a bumper sticker) At least when Elvis died for my sins, he stayed dead! (Seen on another bumper sticker) Source [/color][/b] 8 Likes 2 Shares |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Yet Another Unanswered Question On Creation for atheists/scientists by malakh7: 12:42am On Nov 25, 2014 |
[color=orange]Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don't know how language diversity came about? Great! You don't know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don't squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God's gift to us. [/color] 4 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Yet Another Unanswered Question On Creation for atheists/scientists by malakh7: 12:15am On Nov 25, 2014 |
[color=orange]"God of the gaps" is a type of theological perspective, a fallacy in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. "I don't know how this happened, therefore god did it  " 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: What Is The Hypostatic Union? How Can Jesus Be Both God And Man Simultaneously by malakh7: 7:52am On Nov 24, 2014 |
[color=orange]confused bunch.[/color] www.nairaland.com/attachments/1888761_screenshot201411240703391_jpege83e87b68864bc6fad9f99c15aabffd5 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists More Likely To Self-destruct And Commit Suicide! by malakh7: 7:33am On Nov 24, 2014 |
Hiswordxray:www.nairaland.com/attachments/1888723_screenshot201411240709151_jpegeca11ffc7a1af27981003bceb0f9781f |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absolute Proof Of God's Existence by malakh7: 2:53pm On Nov 23, 2014 |
shachris03:[color=orange]same irritating fallacy. Maybe you should look it up.[/color] |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Absolute Proof Of God's Existence by malakh7: 2:31pm On Nov 23, 2014 |
shachris03:[color=orange]*sigh* God Of The Gaps fallacy.[/color] |
| Celebrities › Re: Serrrriously, What is This? ...what is This? PIC!!! by malakh7: 5:58pm On Nov 18, 2014 |
khiaa:[color=orange]LOL  But she takes 'toned' to the extreme though.[/color] |
| Christianity Etc › Re: For Every Bible Question, There Is A Bible Answer. Ask A Sincere Question Here by malakh7: 5:55pm On Nov 18, 2014 |
SisterMe:[color=orange]and 'dear', how does this paragraph relate to our argument BTW your kid should be punished for your sin?  [/color] |
| Celebrities › Re: Serrrriously, What is This? ...what is This? PIC!!! by malakh7: 1:32pm On Nov 18, 2014 |
marieolae:[color=orange]yeah, that's better.[/color] |
| Christianity Etc › Re: For Every Bible Question, There Is A Bible Answer. Ask A Sincere Question Here by malakh7: 1:04pm On Nov 18, 2014 |
SisterMe:[color=orange]LMAO Cave man reasoning. so that is how your fair god thinks?[/color] |
| Celebrities › Re: Serrrriously, What is This? ...what is This? PIC!!! by malakh7: 1:01pm On Nov 18, 2014 |
marieolae:[color=orange] hide it, is exactly what it does. Go and develop stronger muscles than a guy, and see if he will be attracted to you because of your "beautiful face" BTW, i thought complexion was your excuse.[/color] 1 Like |
| Celebrities › Re: Serrrriously, What is This? ...what is This? PIC!!! by malakh7: 7:23am On Nov 18, 2014 |
marieolae:https://www.chicamod.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Lupita-Arms.jpg [color=orange]light or dark ..this girl is too muscular and masculine![/color] 1 Like |
| Romance › Re: Why Do Women Always Claim They Have Been Used And Dumped Once A Guy Leaves Them? by malakh7: 7:11am On Nov 18, 2014 |
FLAWLES:[color=orange]at least this is a bit more comprehensible ....keep trying  [/color] |
| Romance › Re: Why Do Women Always Claim They Have Been Used And Dumped Once A Guy Leaves Them? by malakh7: 7:02am On Nov 18, 2014 |
Toks2008:[color=orange]  [/color] |
| Romance › Re: Why Do Women Always Claim They Have Been Used And Dumped Once A Guy Leaves Them? by malakh7: 7:00am On Nov 18, 2014 |
FLAWLES:[color=orange]what is this one saying  [/color] 1 Like |
| Romance › Re: A Poem For Eroticangelina...beauty In Nairaland by malakh7: 10:34am On Nov 17, 2014 |
chimerase2:[color=orange] LOL ..phool [/color] 1 Like |
| Romance › Re: A Poem For Eroticangelina...beauty In Nairaland by malakh7: 10:32am On Nov 17, 2014 |
[color=orange]this OP makes me feel ashamed.  [/color] |
| Romance › Re: A Poem For Eroticangelina...beauty In Nairaland by malakh7: 10:29am On Nov 17, 2014 |
Franca2:[color=orange]*dies* \('-')/[/color] 4 Likes |
| Romance › Re: Please What Can I Do To Get All The Girls On Nairaland by malakh7: 10:08am On Nov 17, 2014 |
[color=orange]where this one creep comot from |
| Romance › Re: Don't Ever Get Married by malakh7: 10:05am On Nov 17, 2014 |
striktlymi:[color=orange]you've said it all bro.[/color] |
| Romance › Re: I Find It Difficult To Stare Into My Boyfriend's Eyes. by malakh7: 10:02am On Nov 17, 2014 |
[color=orange]let me guess; the difficulty started after you guys starting having coìtus Don't worry ...it'll pass. [/color] |
| Romance › Re: How Do Girls Feel After Turning A Guy Down by malakh7: 9:54am On Nov 17, 2014 |
[color=orange]from what I've seen, when girls share the story of how they turned down a guy, they seem so proud and on top of the world.[/color] 1 Like |
| Romance › Re: Do You Think You Can Love Someone You Started Out Hating? by malakh7: 9:49am On Nov 17, 2014 |
[color=orange]hell yeah! I've had two such experiences [/color] |
| Romance › Re: Intelligent Girls Are Ostensibly Rude? by malakh7: 9:47am On Nov 17, 2014 |
remsonik:[color=orange]Exactly ...they seem rude to him most probably because they find him silly. The problem is with him, not them[/color] 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Jesus Is Obviously Not From The Lineage Of David by malakh7(op): 9:42am On Nov 17, 2014 |
JESUSSAVES2014:[color=orange]The Messiah is supposed to come from the lineage of David. So if we are to follow the prophecies, Jesus was not the Messiah...if he existed at all. Another one of the bible's contradictions.[/color] |
| Romance › Re: Between A Man And A Woman by malakh7: 4:00pm On Nov 16, 2014 |
[color=orange]kinda true though. 80%[/color] 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Jesus Is Obviously Not From The Lineage Of David by malakh7(op): 3:18pm On Nov 16, 2014 |
[color=orange][b]Christians refer to Jesus as king of the Jews, they are asserting, in essence that Jesus was the messiah, and the final heir to the throne of David. This claim, however, is self-defeating because it undermines the Christian claim that Jesus was miraculously conceived of a virgin. According to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin. This claim, however, completely shatters the core Christian claim that Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s throne and king of the Jews. The virgin birth myth undermines this fundamental Church teaching because tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother. This principle is clearly stated in the Torah: And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head. (Numbers 1:18) According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother, and was not related to Joseph. A human Jewish father, however is essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David, which the real messiah will be. Mary’s genealogy is completely irrelevant to Jesus’ supposed lineage to King David. For good reason, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary’s genealogy recorded. As mentioned above, matrilineal ancestry is irrelevant to tribe identification. Both the first chapter of Matthew and in the third chapter of Luke contain a putative genealogy of Joseph alone. Although these two genealogies completely contradict each other, neither suggests that Mary was a descendant of king of David. Joseph’s genealogy is irrelevant to Jesus because according to two out of four Gospels claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. The author of the Book of Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, knows nothing of a virgin birth, and accordingly, begins his book with the baptism of Jesus. The Book of John contains no infancy narrative. It should be noted that both Catholic and Protestant traditions hold that whereas Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, Luke’s genealogy is of Mary. Although this tradition is nowhere to be found in the New Testament, it was a necessary doctrine for the Church to adopt. Nowhere in the third Gospel, or in the entire New Testament, for that matter, is there a claim that Mary was a descendant of the House of David. On the contrary, Luke plainly asserts that it is Joseph who was from the House of David, not Mary. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:27) In fact, Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron the high priest,1 placing her in the tribe of Levi, not David’s tribe of Judah. Moreover, in Luke 2:4, the author writes that the reason it was necessary for Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem was because it was Joseph, not Mary, who was from the House of David. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David. (Luke 2:4) There are a number of reasons why the Church sought to claim that Luke’s genealogy of Jesus is traced through Mary’s line. To begin with, Paul claims in Romans 1:3 that Jesus was from the seed of David after the flesh. This has always been understood to mean that Paul was claiming that King David was the biological ancestor of Jesus. At the time when Paul penned the Book of Romans, he was completely unaware that Christendom would eventually claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Consequently, the Church desperately needed Paul’s statement to correlate with the virgin-birth story. This dilemma was solved by the assertion that whereas Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus was traced through Joseph’s line, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus was through Mary’s lineage. In this way, Jesus could now be from the seed of David after the flesh through Luke’s genealogy. Likewise, establishing Mary’s lineage to King David, Luke’s genealogy ostensibly solves the problem of what to do with Romans 1:3 (Paul), and enables the Church to claim a physical link between Jesus and King David. Finally, it seeks to resolve an awkward discrepancy between the conflicting genealogies contained in the books of Matthew and Luke. Whereas in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph’s father is Jacob,2 in Luke’s genealogy it is Heli.3 By claiming that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, Heli becomes Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law. Sadly, Christendom’s far-fetched resolution to the Gospel’s conflicting genealogies has satisfied the unlettered minds of billions of parishioners worldwide. Source [/b][/color] |
| Christianity Etc › Re: 10 Things You Never Knew About Jehovah's Witnesses by malakh7: 2:51pm On Nov 16, 2014 |
[color=orange]LOL ...you have just successfully shown how empty your religion is. The original doctrine has been adjusted and adjusted due to errors found out from bible interpretations and misinterpretations... This goes to show that the present doctrine too, could be changed just like it had been in the past. The above point goes to show that there is no supernatural being guiding your faith....it was just a bunch of researchers who thought they had found out a 'truth' ....nothing more. Without first-hand proof or evidence or communication with Jehovah, you just believe that if you follow this book: the bible, then you are bound to receive a reward post-mortem... Define Illusion. Other Churches that claim signs and wonders and first-hand communication with God seem more sane. [/color] |
