jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (416 posts)

Was Jesus ever guilty of evil?

  1. Claire Evans profile image90
    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago

    It's a favourite topic with atheists to go through the Bible looking for anything that may support Jesus was a hypocrite and wicked man.  So what were these supposed evils?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Was this supposed Jesus person God?

      1. Paul Wingert profile image81
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        According to the CHristian founder, Paul, Jesus was the miracle healer and God's kid. Referring to the Bible for details is a pointless and a waste of time. I believe that Jesus was like anyone else, guilty of the same crap that exist today. I'm sure he had love affaires and there's a story that he pushed a boy off a roof casuing his death when Jesus was about 10 or 12.  I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Where does the story of Jesus pushing a boy off a roof come from?

          1. Paul Wingert profile image81
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It was on a National Geographic segment on Jesus some time ago. Whether he did or not, is not important.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It comes from the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic gospel that claims Thomas is Jesus' twin brother.  In that Gospel, Jesus was never crucified.

              Greek philosophers combined their views with Christianity to make it more credible.   The synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John were written down within the life-time of those who knew Jesus.  The Gnostic gospels were written in the second century where none of the witnesses were alive so the Gnostic gospel writers just appended the names of the disciples and Mary to their gospels to lend credibility.

              1. 60
                fearnpolposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to have got very confused information, historian accept and relgious 'scholars' accept that NONE of the gospels were written within living memory of anyone who would have known 'jesus'. The Gnostic gospels were in many cases those the catholic church threw out as they did not meet the message they were trying to put across. Matthew in the original gospel tells us jesus spent the night with a naked teenage boy and loved him truly, now this was removed from the catholic text and has remained out ever since as it doesn't follow the direction the creators of this religion wanted, (it also, pederasty, was illegal for Jews so jesus would have been breaking fundamental laws).
                I think a little more of an open mind and wider scope of reading would open your mind or more probably shake your preconceived 'faith ideas'.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Sources, please.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    For what part?  It all looks accurate to me but there are a lot of individual claims in there so getting sources for all of them would be exhausting.

        2. pisean282311 profile image58
          pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          @claire Greek philosophers combined their views with Christianity to make it more credible.

          it should be other way round...greek philosophy was always credible...

    2. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @claire get over it ...jesus is not end of world...world would be better place if jesus ,muhammad ,buddha are left alone and we focus on larger good of human species than wondering what these thousands of years ago people did...

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This is a religious forum.  You can go over to the pets forum if you don't want to hear this sort of thing.  Jesus is alive today so He is not old news.   All good comes from the Holy Spirit so focusing on Him increases good in this world.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jesus is alive? I'll have to look up the definition of alive. Something not dead.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image81
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The guy have been dead for 2000 years and he's somehow alive? He's alive because someone, who was also lied to, told you so. And you, like the person who told you, accepted this without question.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It wasn't me who said he was alive!

            2. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What I meant was, Jesus is alive in the form of the Holy Spirit.  No one believes Jesus is still around in the flesh.

              1. pisean282311 profile image58
                pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @claire there is no proof of holy spirit either...one can believe in anything from santa to spider man to holy spirit...it means nothing other than human's urge to believe in fantasy...

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There is proof of Him to those who love Him.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image58
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @claire ya like there is proof of ghost for those who fear him or proof of angels for those who believe in him...thats not called proof , thats call belief...nothing wrong in believing ...jesus is one of many entities in world believed by people ...

        2. Peter Hoggan profile image84
          Peter Hogganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is NOT a religious forum, it is a forum open to the discussion of religion. It’s a subtle difference I know, but one which you have clearly missed.

          1. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is a forum, as you said, to discuss religion and that means all aspects.  If others don't like topics anything to do with religious topics, they need to leave.

            1. Peter Hoggan profile image84
              Peter Hogganposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nope, if you dont like the responses of others to your comments and decide to berate them for their opinions and beliefs, then perhaps you should be the one to leave. Does your religion not teach tolerance, understanding and acceptance?

              1. 60
                fearnpolposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Tolerance, understanding and acceptance is only for those who believe the same as you hatred and distrust has always been the reserve for those whom do not.

    3. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I believe what you are looking for is extortion. Obtaining something through force or threats. You know telling people to do as I do or burn in hell. It is my understanding that hell is referenced 162 times in the NT, and over 70 of these references were uttered by the Jesus.

      Extortion is evil is it not?

      I will not entertain much of a debate on this because it doesn't really interest me much.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Extortion would be the case IF there were actually another possibility were it not for the extortionist. If, on the other hand, the reality exists and what many choose to view as 'extortion' is actually a way out of something much, much worse (than what they think of as bad) which will happen no matter what the person does (were they not to accept the 'extortion demand') then it's not really extortion, is it?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't believe God is the extortionist, for no God exists. When people demand something from us for their own gain under the threat of pain and or harm that's extortion even if the imagined gain is a pat on ones own back.

          If one was to imagine God to exist, one would have to ponder why he would create a scenario in which he has to threaten those who don't think he exist with hellfire when he simple could just make himself known. It seems to me that it would be more likely that this threat came from a man or men who were attempting to control a group of people much like the mafia does.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Of course I believe that God exists.

            However, to simply continue your point...

            He did make Himself known. Many times. People chose to act like He didn't even exist anyway. The problem with your logic is the assumption that if He simply made Himself known then everybody would immediately fall in line, and it just ain't so. In fact, many people would start immediately looking for almost any kind of reason why God showing Himself COULD NOT actually be God showing Himself.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well of course that's what rational people would do however if that God does exist he should be able to show himself.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There is - of course - a more reasonable and rational alternative. i.e. that he didn't make himself known, so choosing to not believe is quite reasonable.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Is it reasonable to support the logic that he doesn't make himself known because nobody would believe him even if he did? The omni everything God can't figure out how to make himself known. So he chooses instead to punish those who don't think a book of fiction is fact, but as long as the murderers and drug dealers say sorry they're good.

                  Hear that noise? It's me banging my head on the desk.

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, what you're saying is that if God DID show Himself, then the only rational response is to start finding any explanation that would seem to say that God DID NOT show Himself?

                Interesting.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't you think we should rule out a few things first. For instance the image of Jesus seems to appear in pictures people take of clouds in airplanes. Do was assume the image is real or do we check to see if the image was photoshoped (digital) or double exposed (film)? I can assure you I can put the image of Jesus on a cloud in about 10 seconds. And yet every few days someone posts a picture of Jesus in a cloud on Facebook stating that we must pass it on.

                  So yes, the only rational response to Jesus in a cloud is to examine for forgery.

                  I repeat, an omni everything God should know how to make himself known.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That completely sidestepped my point. I very specifically did NOT mention Jesus in the clouds, or the toast, or the side of the building. I'm saying that if Jesus were right here, corporeally, performing miracles right in front of us with no way to say, "That didn't happen," then a large number of people would STILL look for any reason to explain why, in fact, it didn't happen.

                    Please don't misunderstand me. I'm NOT saying that Miracle Toast is an actual miracle. That's why it resides in a Las Vegas casino.

            2. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's called the scientific method, Chris.  If one immediately jumps to the most illogical conclusion, then we are no better than Chicken Little.  It appears that it is the believer that is immediately looking for any kind of reason to believe that a fictional character from an ancient book has appeared.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                First two sentences, dead right. Could not possibly agree more.

                Second two sentences, dead wrong. Merely prove my point.

                If the scientific method (which was developed at least in large part by actual faithful believers) immediately jumps to the conclusion that God cannot exist, then that's not looking at things logically, that is simply trying to make the evidence support the conclusion. As opposed to the other way around.

                I'm not saying that everyone will believe. What I am saying is that if Jesus were to appear to us now, irrefutably and showing true power, that there are those who will look for almost any reason other than that He's actually God to explain how it could be possible because they simply can't accept the evidence.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How does the scientific method immediately jump to the conclusion that god cannot exist?  You cannot scientifically test for any god claim, there simply is NO evidence to follow.  The few prayer studies that have been completed were dismal failures for faith.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay, I'm not saying that the scientific method would immediately jump to any conclusion at all. I'm sorry if I didn't state myself clearly.

                    What I said, and what I meant to say, was that there are people who will look for any reason why something they are predisposed to disbelieve cannot be happening. I am fully aware that this applies to all sorts of people, and they will label their search in many different ways, but those who don't want to believe in God even if angels were to dance on the head of a pin for all the world to see would say it was scientifically impossible.

                    But again, let me say that I do not think that the scientific method would jump automatically to the conclusion that there is no God.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So you don't think God has the power or ability to make everyone believe. Does that make him not all powerful? You have the power to make me believe you exist, but your God doesn't have that ability? Are you sure you are not just repeating what you've been told?

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can stand right in front of you and smack you repeatedly (not that I would), but you could still deny that it was happening.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I honestly don't know where you got that. Does God have the power to 'make' everyone believe? Of course He does. Do I think He exercises that power to the point where we are all basically robotized? Of course not. The failure to exercise power is not the same as the failure to actually have that power.

    4. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well Claire, now that both the Olympics and the Paralympics are over will you know admit to being wrong about your prediction of terrorism during the Olympics?

    5. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He claimed to be inseparable from God.   And He came to die for all mankind.
      Some people didn't like it then, and they don't like it now.
      Because they're envious of His power and they don't have the same Love in their hearts, nor the willingness to die for anyone, much less the whole of mankind.   They tried to deflect from their own blasphemies by accusing Him of blasphemy;  that's how they pushed for His crucifixion.
      Same ol' song and dance since Lucifer tried to take over Heaven.
      Guess what God did with that Devil and his followers?    Well, we already know.
      The only difference between the two groups of nay-sayers is that the Devil and his followers were/are angels who have no offer of redemption handed to them.   The human nay-sayers did, and do, have a choice since Jesus died for them.

      1. pisean282311 profile image58
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @brenda how r u...the most important word in your writeup is "claimed"....in human journey there have been many jesus and many such claims.....what to say about such god whose inseparable entity can be pushed by mere mortals for crucifixion ...I can understand frustration of such creator who could not control sins of his own creations and set better example for them and then made his own son commit suicide and then again rose him....wow....Oscars goes to jesus's dad for outstanding performance...

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          hi pisean282311, I'm alive and kickin', thank you for asking!   I hope you are well also?

          Actually, the most important word would be salvation.   Perhaps I left that out, so I'll correct that right now!    I simply thought it was obvious.   

          Jesus not only "claimed", but He PROVED Himself.   Indeed, He went through the horrors of being publicly insulted, assaulted, and being crucified, dying on the Cross for your sins and mine and anyone else's who will accept Him as the Savior and God that He is.   The final proof was, as you mentioned, that He arose!

          Oscars for His performance?   Pah.   Oscars are for stars who yearn for money and fame.   God deserves your Love.   He desires your Love.  He requires only your Love.    Yet, somehow, that seems to be the very thing that people refuse to give.

          1. pisean282311 profile image58
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @brenda so Jesus had to prove?...which means he was not as obvious as others who where considered god by their disciples...and how did he prove that?...by rising for death?...many rose before him in many stories...so what is unique in this story other than great imagination of writers?

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Love is unique.   What other person would die for not only their friends' souls but their enemies' souls?

              And indeed, the other "stories" of people rising from the dead aren't provable.  Jesus's story is provable not only by eye-witnesses, but also by that bond of spirit that comes from God Himself---the ability for the Holy Spirit to confirm with our human spirits, an innate ability for the Maker to know HIs creation, and the ability of each person (given through the sacrifice of Jesus) to yearn to know their Creator.

              1. pisean282311 profile image58
                pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @brenda thats one perception...another perception would be dying for one's own belief ...very common phenomena in humans....

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Jesus wasn't just human.   He was fully human but fully God at the same time.  No human could've done what He did.  A small thing for God to do in terms of His abilities; (consider that He created the world!) but a huge thing for any human to do; actually an impossible thing for any human to do.   Jesus was the only One who was found capable and worthy to be that Sacrifice.
                  And....at some point in our lives we have to choose which "perception" to follow.   One is not only common sense but also Spiritual sense.   The others fall short.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image58
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @brenda i guess u havent read eastern religions...most have been god and human at same time....ya they where far more accomplished than jesus ...jesus achieved little in his life time and credit of expansion must be give to paul than jesus...but we would be drifting from topic which is was jesus ever guilty of evil?....what r ur views on that...was he guilty ever?

    6. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As an atheist I have never gone through the Bible and looked for Jesus' being "wicked" or a "hypocrite" and I have yet to meet a single atheist who HAS done that.

      Now there ARE people who will argue that Jesus isn't a very good moral teacher and thus can't be considered perfect. For example Jesus claims that if you love your family more than him you are not worthy of him (Matthew 10:37), not exactly the teachings of a perfect being. Jesus' turn the other cheek philosophy is also not very good advice in all situations.

      There are also teachings that seem directly contradictory to each other, for example Jesus often espouses the belief that men should worry about their own sins and not judge others (worry about the log in your own eye, not the speck in your brother's eye). Those teachings seem to be suggesting responsibility for one's own sin and not casting stones against others. While in other parts of the Gospels and the New Testament it is Jesus' sacrifice that covers all sin, and responsibility for your sins falls away because of that sacrifice.

      In my opinion the Biblical Jesus never does anything I would define as evil, but perfect, not really, and certainly not consistent.

      Evils of the Biblical God, that's a different story.

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Then you have haven't been on Hubpages very long.



        Consider the first commandment: "You shall love the Lord with all your heart and with all your mind."  The second is to love one neighbour as one loves oneself."

        As you can see, you must put Jesus before your fellow man? Why? Because your neighbours did not die for you sins and cannot redeem you.  Putting Jesus first means lessening the power of evil and evil causes suffering.   Many families were in conflict because some people wanted to hold onto their Jewish beliefs and other members of the family wanted to follow Jesus.   If one has divided loyalties, one cannot be a disciple of Jesus. 

        Turning the other cheek means simply not to seek revenge.  Seeking revenge causes bitterness and can lead to things like murder, etc.   It does not mean that one must tolerate evil.  Jesus most certainly did not ignore the evil of the Pharisees.





        Many people make the mistake in thinking that because Jesus died for the sin of man-kind then that means people aren't responsible for any wrong doing and don't sin anymore.  Jesus dying for our sins means we have the opportunity to be forgiven for sin should we truly repent.   We continue to sin and so the repentance and forgiveness happens again.   It is our responsibility to reject sin by truly repenting when we have done wrong and to do our best with the help of God not to commit those sins again.  Since we are all human, we are going to stumble at times. 

        So in death we can be saved from hell if we truly repent.  Without true repentance, we cannot reunite with God.





        I think it has a lot to do with a lack of understanding of the scriptures.  Also, remember the text weren't written in English as everyone knows.   The Gospel writers weren't perfect and could not always capture exactly the meaning of what Jesus was saying.   



        You mean evils of the OT God? Yes, that is a completely different sickening story.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You do know the Commandments are in the Old Testament - right? wink

          Speaking of "lack of understanding."

          Jesus said "you are either with me or against me." Jesus - being omnipotent - knew this would cause thousands of years of conflict and hatred. Ergo - Jesus is evil.

          Can't really blame him - given his heritage. wink

          Still - considering you have made up that first commandment and it actually says no such thing about loving your neighbor - I am beginning to wonder if you have actually read this book.

    7. youcanwin profile image37
      youcanwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You cannot find any wickedness in Jesus.

    8. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      as Jews at the time were still under the law- ie:-Jesus was still alive. The Jews convicted him as a breaker of there interpretions of Gods' law as they interpreted it, evil was not considered and the Romans never conficted Jesus of anything, the decision was passed to the crowd (The Jews) if the story is true. So the basis for the question is a moot point posed by people trying to slam back at those who slam the Belief, but who have no idea why they pose the question except to apease there own ego's. Do we not have anything beter to do than this?

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I propose that the "more useful" thing to do is look at what that crowd of people did, 2000 years ago and see if their actions have similarities in what we do today.
        The details of what happened can never be known to us.  We can only speculate, no matter how much theology any of us has studied.   Any conclusion can only be conjecture.
        Yet we know, each of us, from what goes on in our own brain and with what motivations, that emotions and desires drive our every move, our every thought, our every finger-pointing.   When we refuse to acknowledge what goes on inside of us, at the point which Jesus it seems was addressing, we take that easy path of vindictiveness which showed up in the mob rule.  That was why they put the man to death.  They could not face up to their own truths. And when the gory spectacle of a  crucifixion ensues, that is much more fun.
        No different today.

    9. 0
      OllieTrolleyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      According to the Christian bible, he was holy. He only ever helped and he did not do any wrong. He was persecuted for preaching about God and was nailed to the cross. Which makes me wonder a lot about the cross as a Christian symbol. I mean, it was mostly criminals that were nailed, so why is the symbol of a criminal, also the symbol of Christ. I, personally, don't believe in god, as I'm Wiccan, but I was raised Christian, so I know a bit.

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose it just reminds Christians of what He went through to save our souls.  Some may find it offensive but I know demons hate crucifixes.  That's all that counts.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know that?  Have you seen one, personally and with your own eyes?  back away from one?  Run from one?  Be hurt by one?

          1. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, I've seen shape-shifting.  I also had my cross consecrated.  Recently I went into my church to pray for my friend for whom I'm organizing an exorcism.  I had my cross with me.  When I returned to the church office, a money bag flew off the desk of the secretary.  She was sitting on the other side of the room.  I was there when it happened.   And my priest uncle has performed exorcism himself.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No, no, no.  Consecrating a cross isn't seeing a demon afraid of it.  A money bag falling off the table isn't seeing a demon afraid of a cross.  A priest performing an exorcism and declaring the demon left isn't seeing a demon afraid of a cross.

              You claim to know demons hate crosses (presumably because they damage them and they are afraid of crosses as a result) - when did you ever see such a thing?  What did the demon look like?

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Are you sure a wind did not cuss up and blew through a window.  It seen to be christian experience demons and not unbeliever because we are already owned by the devil.

                What is really the root of all evil - Money or Satan?
                Has there ever been a exorcism caught on film?

                Next time it happens, hire me, I'll film it  because want to be the first.

                1. 0
                  OllieTrolleyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I've had experiences with evil spirits. Bad experiences. I've always believed in spirits, and I've had non-believer friends who have had experiences as well. Of course, now they're believers. I personally don't believe anyone is "owned by the devil", just not as open minded as they could be. Again, these are my beliefs, and I am entitled to them. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. But, you can't say it's only Christians who experience this stuff.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Devin, I have no problems with you having your beliefs.  You are not "pushy" with it, you sound fun, and the world is big enough for you and me.  smile

              2. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                How do you know for sure?



                You don't see demons.  With regards to my personal experience with demons and my cross, why do I prove it to you? I cannot.  I was starting to get nightmares.  I felt an evil presence.  When I took my cross with me to a Maundy Thursday service, they went away.  I didn't expect that.

                1. 0
                  OllieTrolleyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, silver works for keeping away evil too. As well as some herbs like sage. Also, I'm just wondering, why do you think it was the cross that sent them away? It could have just been coincidence. Maybe something else happened to send them away. You never know, there's always a possibility.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I've had near death experience where my nightmare felt like there were demons in action. It's all in your imagination and in most causes heavy drugs are  involved. Everything in life and in human history was all create from our imagination. You just have an imaginary friend that you assume protects you.

                  2. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, to me I know it is true.  I am busy organizing an exorcism at the moment and I know only Jesus demons are very frightened of Him.  My uncle himself has performed exorcisms in the past.  He is a priest.  It is not for nothing that Satanists revere the inverted cross.

  2. Paul Wingert profile image81
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    The Jewish writers, even today, do not believe in hell. Of course mainstream Judism started brushing off the Old Testament as historical truth as far back as the 12th century.

  3. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    Why Jesus is the most wicked man in the Bible Part I:

    First of all, I want to thank Claire Evans for creating this forum and being open-minded and confident in her beliefs to allow them to be challenged. There are Christian Hubs on this site where if you challenge the beliefs of the author your comments will be deleted almost immediately, not surprisingly.

    While I do consider the Bible and, most specifically, the Old Testament to be an immoral book, I reserve my harshes criticisms for Jesus of Nazareth or, as I much prefer, " Jesus, the wicked"  from the New Testament.  Here is an example of his madness and evil nature. King James Version of the Bible:
    (Luke 14:26) 'If any man come to me and hate NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children,  and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.'

    What a wonderful example of morality this is. What a loving 'savior'. Really, few statements in the Bible are more immoral than this. What is more, it directly contradicts one of the few Ten Commandments worth knowing 'Honor thy Mother and Father'.  How can any honest, moral, human with a shred of integrity want to follow this wicked man?  The only excuse is that you are either incredibly immoral, stupid or you have been brainwashed to believe Jesus of Nazareth is a loving man.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Brian, did you not bother to read my rebuttal of this?

      The NT was not written in English.  It was written in Greece so this is a translation issue.  The Greek AND Hebrew equivalent to hate is love less.

      Numerous Greek scholars have added their combined years of study to the discussion to testify that the word “hate” (miseo) in Luke 14:26 does not mean “an active abhorrence,” but means “to love less.” E.W. Bullinger, in his monumental work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, described the word “hate” in Luke 14:26 as hyperbole. He rendered the word as meaning “does not esteem them less than me” (1968, p. 426). W.E. Vine, the eminent Greek scholar, said the word miseo could carry the meaning of “a relative preference for one thing over another.” He listed Luke 14:26 under this particular definition (1940, p. 198). Lastly, A.B. Bruce, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, stated that “the practical meaning” of the word “hate” in this verse is “love less” (n.d., p. 575).

      http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … rticle=781

      Here's the Hebrew explanation:


      "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
      Talmudim, 'students' of Jewish rabbis were taught to place their affections for their teachers higher than that for their fathers, for:

      "his teacher has priority, for his father brought him into this world, but his teacher, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the world to come".

      But 'hatred'? Surely that is taking loyalty to your teacher too far - even if your teacher is God in human form. For another commandment is that of honouring ones parents - which itself cannot be contradicted. Indeed, this verse in Luke has caused much anguish and pain between zealous Christian sons or daughters and their parents, who believing they were expressing their devotion to Jesus, had no regard or worse still, hatred, for their parents.

      But what we have here is another Hebrew problem. Biblical Hebrew lacks the necessary language to exactly define the comparative sense, i.e., 'more than' or 'less than'. Instead it tends to express two things which may be comparatively of different degree like 'first' and 'second' as extremes such as 'first' and 'last'. In this way love and hate whilst appearing as opposites may in fact be related but lesser terms such as 'love more' and 'love less'.

      "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

      A Jewish man was not allowed to abandon a 'hated' wife's son's rights of inheritance. But more than this, the Deuteronomy passage describes favouritism between two wives, not absolute love and hatred, for the man bears children by both. Hence, different Bible versions struggle with the phrase "hated" and some adopt "unloved" or "disliked", as softer phrases. However, the Hebrew word used in the second phrase is  sânê' (Strong’s #8130) which in its more than 140 uses is always translated by 'hate' or by words indicating 'foe' or 'enemy'. Literal versions cannot soften the apparent invective, only an idiomatic understanding or paraphrase can explain the metaphor.

      The Hebrew sânê' is the opposite of love which could mean 'non-election'. This contrast is the same in Genesis 29:31 between Leah ('hated' senû’âh from sânê’) and Rachel, who in the previous verse is described as "loved more than Leah", a contrast of degree not of absolute love and hate. Compare also the passages in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 above; 1 Samuel 1:5; Proverbs 30:23; 2 Samuel 19:6; and even Exodus 20:3 which speaks of preferring others gods as equivalent to hating God (cf. Matthew 6:24 on serving God and mammon, loving one and hating the other).

      The Jewish midrash on Exodus describes God as hating the angels, and not just the fallen ones. It does not mean he dislikes Michael and Gabriel! It means that he chooses to give man the Torah, rather than the angels:

      "By three names is this mount known: The mountain of God, Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai. . . . Why The mountain of God? (Exodus 18:5). Because it was there that God manifested His Godhead. And Sinai? Because [it was on that mount] that God showed that He hates the angels and loves mankind." (Exodus Rabbah 51.8, Soncino edition)

      There is actually a Hebrew wordplay here, for Sinai sounds like the Hebrew for hate, although it begins with a different Hebrew letter and may mean 'thorny'. Similarly, Malachi speaks of God's preference for Jacob over Esau:

      "... yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau..." (Malachi 1:2-3)

      But Esau, like Ishmael instead of Isaac, was not hated absolutely, only "rejected" as the Aramaic targum (paraphrase) prefers to render it. In Aramaic sanah can mean 'to hate' and 'to separate', so the gospels could be saying separate yourselves from your parents if you want to follow me. This is a possible interpretation, but still against Jewish and biblical culture which is very supportive of family. Apart from Jesus' 'separating' and staying behind in the temple when he was younger he was a very dutiful son."

      http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm

      Jesus was saying that He must be put first before His parents.  People must love their parents less than Him.

      This can be backed up by:

      "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:37)


      And Brian, is Jesus more wicked than Moses who says virgins out to be raped and non virgins killed?

    2. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Brian, I just have this to say.

      If that's the 'wickedest' thing you can come up about Jesus, you're reaching.  I mean, c'mon, at most that shows him to be arrogant and self-centered, but it also shows him giving others the choice as to whether or not to follow him.

      The very statement begins with the word "IF."

      It's a stretch, man. 

      big_smile

  4. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Jesus guilty of evil?

    As Yehoshua of Nazareth, no.

    For a great portion of my 60+ years, I thought Jesus whipping the money lenders was a bit over the top, but now I know differently. He did it out of supreme love, because it prepared the way for his sacrifice. Also, it sent a message that no one should stand in the way or distract from salvation, especially in the temple.

    But did the child of God (soul, true self, Holy Ghost) who was Jesus, do evil in an earlier life? Perhaps.

    There is some indication that Jesus may have been King David -- the most beloved son of God. David went after another man's wife. Tsk, tsk. And David had many hundreds of years to get over his crimes. When the spirit who was Jesus came to Bethlehem, he was fully aware.

    Elijah, on the other hand, had lived a very righteous life, but when he came back as John the Baptist, he had forgotten the most important element of his mission -- preparing the way for Jesus. He became a stumbling block to Jesus by his forgetfulness, not only that he was Elijah returned, but that he had been meant to prepare the way for and to support Jesus. Instead, while he was in prison, he sent his own disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one.

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @lone if jesus would have been born today he would have been communist or socialist...usa cant survive without money lenders ...jesus was doing something out of love or out of his ignorance?

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You missed the point.  The money lenders were extorting money out of people who just wanted to make a humble offer to the Lord and they were poor. It was blasphemy and cruel to the people.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Rubbish. They were not lenders - they were money changers who held the only coin acceptable to pay taxes with - the silver shekel. Nothing to do with humble offerings to the Lord. lol

          1. Jerami profile image79
            Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            With all due respect..
            I could be wrong, but it is my understanding ….
            the people were traveling great distances for their yearly visit to Jerusalem, as was their custom, in order to offer their sacrifices unto the Lord, Too far to actually bring their livestock,sheep, doves etc.; so they would buy these things when they arrived.  This practice may have been following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. 
            The animals being sold were substandard, and the “money changers” were cheating their customers. The custom had turned into a money making carnival type of event.  This so called temper tantrum which Jesus exibited was what one might say  the last straw for the Pharisees which forced their hand. They had to do something to show the people who was in charge. Jesus was forcing their hand.
            The money changers had nothing to do with paying Roman taxes.                                                       I may be totally wrong ??? but is my understanding of the situation.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://biblicalmites.com/shekel_of_tyre.html

              big_smile

              Just as a matter of interest - where did you get your version of the story?

              1. Jerami profile image79
                Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I do not recall any particular source for my opinion. As in most of my opinions I might have come to this conclusion all on my own. You know ...  I guess I may have made it up all on my own.               The way I put things together. 
                I was not aware that Roman tax collection was cooridinated in anyway with the Pass Over?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I take it you did not bother reading the link I gave you? Please read that for an explanation. But - thanks for being honest - that seems to be the way an awful lot of people come to their conclusions about what the bible says.

                  1. Jerami profile image79
                    Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I did read that link and it was very interesting.   But I didn't see where tax collection to Rome was connected with the Pass over.
                    When I read anything including the bible, I come to my own conclusions as to what it is saying. I don't need someone else telling me what was meant when it says this or that.

                    This is why I disagree with much of what clergy is teaching. They teach what they were told to teach regardless of what is actually written.

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They were trading within the temple so most definately ,it was EVERYTHING to do with Gods house wink

            Naughty naughty Mark ,you know better than this.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Awww - sorry you don't understand. LOLOLOL

    2. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Where'd you get this reincarnation stuff from? John didn't forget anything.  The angel Gabriel revealed to John's father, Zacharias, that that John would fulfill Malachi 4:6, stating that he would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah.”  Zacharias never told John that he was Elijah because it was not the case.

      So what does  "in the spirit and power of Elijah" mean?  Jesus meant that John came to fulfill the same role Elijah did and that was to call for Israel to repent.

      Also, Elijah was said never to have died.  Therefore John could not have been a reincarnation of him.

  5. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    NO!

  6. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    What that has to do with anything?   We were talking about Jesus turning over the moneychangers tables which I thought had everything to do with the yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem. I wasn't aware that the moneychangers were camped out in the temple at any other time.  (???)

      I think that most people come to their own conclusions only after they have accepted as fact certain false conclusions which they were told certain passages were saying , which they don't.

    Like building their own house ;  the way they want it,  on a cracked foundation.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes - this is why your religion causes so many fights. wink

      Not interested in learning about the money changers then? Musta been wot us sed first innit? lol

      Pity really, because it actually applies today. If you can be bothered to actually read the link I gave you - you will understand. lol lol

      1. Jerami profile image79
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't understand exactly what in my comment that you have arguement with.
        I don't disagree with anything which you said.   I just don't see the corrilation with tax collecting with the days before the Pass over. 
        I do think that when the last Jewish revolt was put down in 135 AD and Hadrian attempted to erase that Hebrew nation from the face of the earth, religion began a period of metamorphis which lasted over 200 years. I also think that the RCC established a NEW foundation upon which all religions from that day forward must conform.  And yes!  this causes a lot of conflict!   Exactly as was foretold in the book of Revelation.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Self fulfilling drivel sadly. I wonder why you cling to it so.

          Read the article again. When was the TEMPLE tax collected?

          1. Jerami profile image79
            Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Don't you think that we do ourselves a grave injustice when we "Think" that we have all the answers?  Neither of us have all the answers!

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Really? How do you know what I have exactly? In any case - I never said any such thing. I just offered you an explanation for Jesus' wrath at the money changers. But - it did not say the majik words you needed to hear or fit in with your previous preconceptions that you made up for yourself.  wink

              I think you do yourself a grave injustice every time you accept the bible the way you do. You were not interested in learning something - this is the injustice you do yourself really. But - that is what your religion teaches you to do - isn't it?

              1. Jerami profile image79
                Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know who you are doing the greatest injustice, me or yourself in "THINKING" that you know these things which you just spouted off with

                I "THINK" that you didn't understand what I was saying as much as much as You "Think" that I didn't understand what you were saying.

                I also "think"  that we don't  "KNOW"  as much as we "think" we do .

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Spouted off with? OK - fair enough - I will not try and show you anything new in future. Odd - because this is one of the keys to understanding the early development of your church - all the way to the destruction of the Templars and the creation of the modern banking system.  I understood what you were saying just fine. This was not a Roman tax.

                  Please don't include me in your sweeping statements. Continue to wallow in your fulfilled prophecies as you are supposed to. wink

                  1. Jerami profile image79
                    Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This was not a Roman tax.

                    That is all that I was saying in the first place.

  7. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I think Jesus is one of the greatest role models that ever lived. I don't know if he did evil, and I don't care. His words are a contribution great enough to forever eclipse any shortcomings. I do believe that this need to perceive him as less than perfect is not simply human nature.

    Although we appear to have an inborn need to tear down others, in order to build ourselves up; I think some within our society also use criticism of the story of him as a scapegoat out of frustration and fear of the deification of Mohammed. Which isn't, in my mind, unjustified. And, were he alive today I think he would not only understand the angst that drives it, but agree with it.. He went out of his way to make it clear he didn't want to be deified. Probably, because he was smart enough to see the dangers it can cause.

  8. waynet profile image46
    waynetposted 4 years ago

    Yes. He stole fizzy lifting drinks and he farted in the face of his own Jesus image! Jesus also ate all the Childrens Easter eggs because he said he created that special occasion for chocolate lovers around the world and he drinks his own Jesus juice!

  9. TahoeDoc profile image95
    TahoeDocposted 4 years ago

    There was the time when he killed all the poor innocent little pigs. And, probably financially devastated their owner.

    1. Brian in Canada profile image59
      Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The idea of a divine Jesus is a preposterous one at best and there is no reason to believe he actually existed (although I personally believe a man named Jesus who declared himself a prophet did exist) as the evidence is so thin, hysterical and obviously cobbled together. Furthermore,  there is absolutely zero proof about his claim to be the son of the great murderous dictator in the sky. Remember, prophets during the times of before and after Jesus were a dime a dozen and continue today. What is more, if Jesus was not the son of God,  then surely his teachings are not only immoral, but he would have to be considered an evil and wicked man. To instruct his followers to believe in everything I say or go to hell or heaven; leave off their families; take no thought for the morrow.  And here is why you've got to believe in me - because my mother never had sex with anyone and that proves the truth in what I say. Ridiculous!

      Look, I am willing to grant it all - I am willing to grant the immaculate conception, then the virgin birth, then the resurrection and the annunciation and the assumption.  I am willing to grant all of it, sure, why not? It still does not prove the truth of the proposition that you should take no thought for the morrow - the central doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth - no investment, no thrift, no care for your children, that you should abandon your family and just follow me. A ridiculous and immoral proposition and one that C.S. Lewis very cleverly and very honestly for a believer says that it means Jesus must have either been a maniac, a sick man, an evil man, or he must have believed the world was coming immediately to an end and he was commanded to announce this to the deluded, bronze age inhabitants of Palestine. Because if he didn't believe his words were divinely mandated then his words would not have been inaccurate or false they would have been wicked. A man who concocted a very human, intelligible, very pitiable, practice of fraud that may have worked on stupefied peasants in the greater Jerusalem area but should have no power to influence the people of today. Instead, we should be studying and furthering the wonderful thoughts, methods, systems and noble ideas of a man like Socrates who never prefaced his words with childish, insecure threats of eternal torture or paradise if we did not believe and follow him.

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Brian, you clearly WANT to believe Jesus is wicked for you have no merit to think so.   You agree with me because you ignored my rebuttal.   How you can think Jesus is more immoral than Moses who instructed murder and rape is beyond me. 

        Why did Jesus speak about hell? When people sin and unrepent they separate themselves from God.  Hell is the separation of God and I'm not talking about the God in the Old Testament.  Why would Jesus die for the of the world and go to hell Himself if He was so eager to toss people into hell? That indicates He did everything in His power to help us avoid it.   People send themselves to hell so why can't Jesus warn us of the consequence of sin? Are you not going to warn someone of the consequence of murdering, for example?

        When Jesus said, "Follow me", He did not necessarily mean that in a physical sense.  I mean, can you expect the lame to follow Him everywhere?  I follow Jesus but not in a physical sense obviously. 

        As for taking no thought for tomorrow, what He meant was that don't worry about things that are out of our hands.  It does not mean we do nothing and expect hand outs.  It means we do everything we can for ourselves and leave the rest to God.   Many people worry about the future especially about finances.  God says don't worry about that if you have done everything you can.  He will always provide.

        Deep down you are threatened by Jesus.

    2. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Very good answer.  However, there is something wrong with this story geographically. The  oldest Greek manuscripts (Mark) say this miracle took place in the land of the Gerasenes (no lake there).  If this is the case, the pigs would have had to run 31 miles.  That's impossible because the tenders of the pigs would never known what had happened to the pigs.

      When the author of Matthew read Mark's version, he saw the impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis). Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But even Gadara was five miles from the shore - and in a different country. Later copyists of the Greek manuscripts of all three pig-drowning gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) improved Gadara further to Gergesa, a region now thought to have actually formed part of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.



      If we want to follow Matthew and place the exorcism at Gadara, let us see what happened to the Gadarenes in the Jewish War of Josephus:

      “Vespasian sent Placidus with 500 horse and 3000 foot to pursue those who had fled from Gadara,... (5) Placidus, relying on his cavalry and emboldened by his previous success, pursued the Gadarenes, killing all whom he overtook, as far as the Jordan. Having driven the whole multitude up to the river, where they were blocked by the stream, which being swollen by the rain was unfordable, he drew up his troops in line opposite them. Necessity goaded them to battle, flight being impossible... Fifteen thousand perished by the enemy’s hands, while the number of those who were driven to fling themselves into the Jordan was incalculable; about two thousand two hundred were captured. A mighty prey was taken also, consisting of asses, and sheep, and camels, and oxen (6) This blow was the greatest that had befallen the Jews, and appeared even greater than is was; for not only was the whole countryside through which their flight had lain one scene of carnage, and the Jordan choked with dead, but even the [Dead Sea] was filled with bodies, masses of which were carried down into it by the river.” War 4. 7. 4-6

      Again the Jews are driven into the water by the Romans and thousands are drowned. We should ask, did the people of the East herd swine? There is no record of this being a contemporary practice in the area. Perhaps in Europe, but not Syria or Judea. Note when Placidus captured the livestock of the Gadarenes it consisted of asses, sheep, camels, and oxen. No swine! Some might say, “of course not, Jesus drove them to destruction.” This begs the question of the near forty years between the destruction of the Gadarene swine by Jesus, and the Roman destruction of the Gadarenes in 67. There was plenty of time for the Gadarenes to raise another ‘herd of swine’.

      Read more here:

      http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Swine.htm

      I also got a good explanation from an atheist site believe it or not.


      "The first act of his ministry among the Jews was casting out a demon; the first act of his ministry among the Gentiles would be to cast out a horde of demons. Jesus is faced with an unknown number, but probably several thousand (a “Legion” was major unit of the Roman army consisting of four to six thousand men) in one or two men (in Mark we have just one man but in Matthew there are two men).
      Because the spirits were “unclean,” it probably would have been regarded as poetic justice for them to be sent off into “unclean” animals. Traditionally Christians have read this passage as representing the beginning of the purification of Gentile lands because both unclean animals and unclean spirits were banished to the sea which Jesus had already demonstrated his power and authority over.

      It’s arguable, though, that this story may have been more properly read as a parable about the unwanted presence of the Roman Legions. They, of course, would not have wanted to be sent out of the country but many Jews would have wanted to see them driven into the sea."



      Considering that swine herding was not a known practice there, I believe that this Jesus exorcism story was a metaphor or parable for the war on the Gadarenes.  Gadarenes were also gentiles and were considered swine.

  10. ITcoach profile image60
    ITcoachposted 4 years ago

    Hi Every one.

    I could not believe this because the Jesus was only the messenger of Allah and truly all the myths are wrong. Perhaps there is another thing, The Adam is the Father of all of us, whenever he passed away from this world then his messages also wrapped up same is the case with other messengers also. so We must have to believe that Jesus was Just Messenger of Allah

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why do we HAVE to believe that Jesus was JUST a messenger of Allah?

  11. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    Claire Evans, Moses was commanded by God in the Old Testament to commit the acts you described. As a Christian I am surprised you are attacking Moses for clearly doing the work of God - isn't that what a good Christian is supposed to do? The Bible certainly does not condemn Moses' actions. Or was this another translation gone wrong, too? Perhaps you can use that excuse to defend any attack on your great dictator in the sky or that false prophet Jesus Christ? No, I stand by my claim that Jesus Christ is wicked.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who is the God in the Old Testament? The Father of Jesus whom it completely contradicts? God cannot contradict Jesus as they are one. 

      Consider Jesus came to earth to dispel the lies about God.  Why would Jesus say those who live by the sword, die by the sword when Moses was constantly killing?  Why does God in the OT contradict Jesus?

      Did you know that the Old Testament doesn't actually refer to God but the gods?  That's according to the literal translation of the Old Testament. 

      If you want to know what I'm talking about, watch..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6S … CJxw1wDtoq

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Claire, it is easy to decide to separate text into sections you accept and parts you don't. Unfortunately, if you claim part of it is a lie, you have to accept it all as a lie. Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to the Jews. What he referenced as scripture was the exact same Torah used today. The God he claimed kinship with is the God of the Old Testament.

        Contradictions abound, but you have to resolve them with a better argument. The one you are presently using does not hold water.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh really now? Since when does pointing out lies in the Old Testament make the whole Bible a lie? If that is the case, you ought to toss out ALL history books!

          So quote where Jesus supports murder, rape of virgins, etc, stoning of people, etc.  You don't think I dismiss the whole of the OT, do you?

          You know He severely contradicted the Mosaic law.  Why not think logically?

          But why try and reason with me? Didn't you say to Motown that I cannot be reasoned with?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Claire - I see your problem. You think the bible is a history book, when it is in fact a majik book. Throw out 50% of it because it contradicts the other 50% by all means, but don't fool yourself it is real.

            When is the bomb going off in London again?

            "Some when after the Olympics"? lol lol

  12. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    To anyone who believes Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God:

    If a man came to your door today and told you he was the son of god would you believe him? Probably not. I think the majority of people who consider him crazy and rightfully so. However, you believe in a man who lived 2000-years ago who you've never met and whose very existence is questionable at best. A man who claims to be the son of a god, who can preform 'miracles', is born of a virgin mother and rose from the dead and if you dont believe him you will be tortured for all eternity. It is preposterous, immoral, against logic, common sense and insults human integrity. You might as well believe in unicorns, the world is flat and the planet Jupiter made from cheese. The only reasons for believing this is incredible stupidity or you have been brainwashed.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'd ask why He claimed that to be so. 

      Those in hell believe in Him alright.  If one can still reject Jesus once knowing the truth one day then they choose their own path in life. 


      But seriously, we all know you think Jesus is wicked even though your argument is poor.  You have absolutely no interest in hearing what others have to say and to finding the truth.   You want to believe He is wicked.  What about Mohammed? Can you tell us how wicked he was?

  13. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    Its not a matter of caring what others think. Christianity is immoral and people who believe in it wish to be a slave. It is a master-slave relationship and not only is it immoral but it is insulting to one`s human integrity. I dont mean to say because one is Christian one is immoral - I have friends who are Christians and they are wonderful people. However, I am completely against totalitarianism and superstitions and Christianity represents both of these horrors. The world would be a much better place to live in if man could throw off the shackles of religion and stop suffering the poison it delivers .

    I have no interest in speaking about that murderous, pedophile mohammed.  It is much more interesting to speak about Socrates or George Orwell whose works are much more beautiful, moral and intriguing to read  then the clumsy, blood thirsty stories from the Bible.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Brian, ought I take you seriously when you continually ignore my rebuttals?  Jesus said He came to serve and that love will set us free.  Does that sound like a master-slave relationship? If I in even way thought God was trying to control me, I'd leave Christianity.  Having a relationship with God is being a team. 

      You automatically assume that Jesus is the son of God depicted in the OT despite me providing you with a link proving otherwise which you clearly did not watch.  You aren't interested in the truth.  You are interested in YOUR truth. 

      Tell me, is Mohammed and Islam not worth talking about in light of the Prophet film and the deaths that have ensued? Last time I checked, no one has been killed for insulting Jesus. 

      I think you should also direct your anger at Judaism as the OT is their primary scriptures.  After all, that murderous God defended the Jews.

      1. Brian in Canada profile image59
        Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did he? Where was your God when the Germans were murdering Jewish and Slavic children at Auschwitz by the thousands? If God had the power to stop thier sufferings and did not act then he is wicked. If he did not have the power then he is impotent and pathetic. You know, if God cast Lucifer out of heaven then I am starting to think Lucifer might be the moral, caring one after all. It only makes sense.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I started a forum thread on where was God during the Halocaust.  I mean, if he saved the Jews in the OT, why not during the Halocaust?

          The answer is because God never did smite Israel's enemies.  It never happened.  For God to stop the suffering in the world, we need to forfeit our free will and worship Him and not be able to make decisions of our own.   I just laugh at the thought of you doing that.   Would you like to give your free will up to a God so that evil won't exist? 

          Therefore with free will, the responsibility falls on OUR shoulders.  With free will, man inflicts suffering on others because people are at the mercy of other's free will.   I know that if I go through suffering there is a reason for it because I am Christ-committed.   There was a time where I didn't see that purpose and resented God for it but looking in retrospect things became so clear. 

          Never underestimate the power of the devil though.  People think that God is the only omniscient and omnipresent being.  It is not true.  Satan has all the capabilities God has except that he cannot defeat Jesus because of the power of love. 

          The question could be posed: Where was God when Jesus was crucified? He was nowhere to be found because the result of sin pushed God away. 

          When we do the tiniest of sins, we contribute to the power of the devil.  That includes you.  You falsely accuse Jesus of being wicked thus give Satan more power.  We have all done it.   The world revolves around Satan.  That is why evil is so prevalent.  Because God loves us so much to give us our space, it is up to us to reject evil and follow Him. 

          How can one truly appreciate goodness without knowing suffering?  How can we appreciate the rain without the drought? The best people are those who have suffered and have been spiritually enriched by it.   Those who know no suffering are of no use to anyone because they cannot identify with the pain of the world.

          Everything a person or being as ever suffered, God has suffered that pain Himself. 

          And don't fall for Satan's nonsense that Lucifer was the good guy.  What is he doing to stop the evil in the world?  Those who worship him are those who start wars and are evil.  In fact, you ought to start condemning Lucifer for being wicked.

          1. Brian in Canada profile image59
            Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            To be honest, Claire Evans, the fact God did not intervene during the Holocaust is just more evidence that God is in fact not real. Surely if he did exist and possess that moral sentiment Christians are always professing he has, contrary to the Bible, then surely he would have stepped in immediately. Well, unless God was on the side of Hitler - which is not unbelieveable as not only did Hitler claim repeatedly in Mein Kampf he was doing 'God's work' but the Catholic Church openly supported the Nazi's. Regardless, I do believe it is more evidence God does not exist. As for Lucifer, he is just another character in the fable.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You have this horrible habit of just ignoring someone's explanation.  I'm asking you, do you want to give up your free will to God? Yes or no? If not, who are you to say God should intervene in the Halocaust?  So you want God to give you free will but you also want Him to take it away when He deems fit?

              Imagine if God stepped in all the time when evil occurs.  That means we have to comply with what He commands because He'd control the world. 

              Tell me, if God intervened, can you give me an explanation who it would be done? Make all the Nazis drop dead? How about the US? What countless suffering they have caused.  Would it be appropriate for all in the US government to drop dead? What about Iran? The whole would would drop dead for we all sin and that includes you.  You'd have a crai about that.

              Bush claimed he was doing God's will when he ordered the invasion of Iraq.  Wow, that must mean God approves of that.  Hitler claimed to be a Christian for political reasons. 

              As for the Vatican supporting Hitler, just more proof that the Vatican is Satanic.

              You also assume that if God isn't moral then God doesn't exist.  Logical fallacy.

  14. thirdmillenium profile image71
    thirdmilleniumposted 4 years ago

    The best possible oxymoron anyone could come up with: :
    evilJesus

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not so sure. I would hazard a guess that this person/concept/myth is probably responsible for more deaths and suffering than any other idea in history.

      1. thirdmillenium profile image71
        thirdmilleniumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        True but you can't possibly hold him personally responsible

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How strange - I thought you guys thought Jesus was an omnipotent, omnipresent, prescient god? In which case - He is indeed personally responsible.

          Which is it?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Can we hold any man responsible for the actions of his commands to his followers?

  15. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    Mark Knowles, you forgot omni-wicked god in your description of Jesus.

  16. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Just suppose that God did intervein and every person that died in all of the wars in the 20th century alone didn't die! Not to mention through out history.
    How many people would that be ?   Maybe 100 trillion?  (or more)  Suppose they all had four children.

    How many people died from starvation?  What if God interveined and they didn't die but instead lived and had four children? 

    What if God took death of every kind out of the equation?   Before long there wouldn't be a blade of grass growing anywhere because someones foot would be standing on every piece of ground.

    Just look at the individual person. Millions of cells are dieing continuously while millions are being produced.  It doesn't matter HOW these cells die, but it would matter if they didn't.
    Production would eventually come to a standstill.  Life without death isn't life
         And that's just a cold hard fact.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good point, Jerami.

  17. Rina Pinto profile image60
    Rina Pintoposted 4 years ago

    The very Breath one breaths is the Breath of God and Jesus is Lord the Son of God .. Period! I dont support this from any angle. Jesus came to show us the Way to His Father God and was a total sacrifice here on earth. That was a sweet plan of Restoration according to the Book of Jeremiah 291:11. God is Sovereign all by Himself. And He knows what He does. And what He does is always Perfect and Eternal.

  18. benisan85745 profile image60
    benisan85745posted 4 years ago

    ....wow! Never would I have guessed that there were so many professional on the bible. This argument is as stale as stale comes. To know who wins, unfortunately we are going to have to wait until we all die. Claire, I'm assuming you have read your bible, if so, hold it dear to your heart. You ought to know that as a Christian you shouldn't be involved in heated debates. As for the non-believers, they are content with their remarks. To deny Christ, is easy, to walk with Him and live by His words, is what is difficult. His number one, Peter "the Rock", denied Him....three times at our Lord's lowest time. His three chosen disciples, slept in the Garden of Gethsemane when He asked to them to stay awake so they would not fall into temptation. The "human" side of Christ was shown when he begged for the cup to be lifted, He knew His end was near. Any one of us would have trembled the same way knowing we had to die for everyone, especially those that sh*t on you and mock you.
    This argument will never be won.
    In fact this Hub would have been more interesting if it were on the steps to rebuilding a carburetor...men vs women. Instead, we have grown folks arguing like reality shows, silly.
    Claire follow if aren't already, my girl Rina Pinto, that woman is on fire for our Lord. yet, you never see her in battles with others, because she knows where she stands. Just like everyone else on this feed, they are convinced they are also correct. So be it.
    Lotsa love & respect
    Ka'imi'loa

    1. Rina Pinto profile image60
      Rina Pintoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My Friend in Christ Jesus benisan85745 absolutely right said if i am on fire, therefore it  makes no sense in fighting out a baseless question about Jesus being guilty. Christians on the highest level of their Journey after Red Sea crossing will never be the same. .They do understand how they were lead by His Holy Spirit. The unbelievers will ultimately say a thing or too about Jesus .. anyways its the Power of our Lord Jesus who would draw them nigh unto Him who has called us all from the darkness. That is why at the time of the Creation - our Sovereign God Yahweh said " Let there be LIGHT and there was LIGHT and He saw that THIS LIGHT was GOOD! .. AMEN? God, through His Son Lord Jesus and Their Sweet Holy Spirit will deffinately  lead them (Unbelievers) to the Greener pastures - The Garden of Eden. The Word of God says' I have come to save all so that They may have this LIGHT and the Light of this WORLD is JESUS His Son.

      Love you All in Jesus name!

    2. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus was involved with heated debates.  A lot of them with the Pharisees I might add.  Wow, the things He said to them! Yes, I am a real hothead when it comes to defending my Lord Jesus Christ.   What you may see as a stale-mate may actually make someone else think when debating these things. 

      Not all unbelievers are confident with their remarks.  We are behind a computer screen so we can't read their body language.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder if you realize how sad it appears to an outsider that your "Lord" is so feeble as to need some one to defend it? Certainly made me think. lol

        1. Rina Pinto profile image60
          Rina Pintoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Excuse me gentleman or lady.. who so ever you may be .. forgive cause i dont know the gender you belong .. let me remind you that Jesus does not want any one to defend HIM .. He is a Sovereign Lord and God of this whole universe, heaven & earth. Instead Jesus is the defender of our Faith and the finisher of our Faith .. people .. get your minds & hearts straight .. letting your minds works for the devil the father of lies is all he wants you to focus on .. letting you keep from worshiping your Maker!. Note: - Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord .. Hallelujah & Amen!

          1. pisean282311 profile image58
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @pinto u talk like iranian president...evey knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess when mahdi is back that allah is lord...wow...

            1. Rina Pinto profile image60
              Rina Pintoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              God does not have to prove Himself right before men.. .. i think the very breath you breath is from Him .. simple ... it explains it all that God is Sovereign and is in total control.!

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did you really just say God is in total control? Really? This is the world he planned? This is what he wanted? Hunger, disease, war.

                1. Rina Pinto profile image60
                  Rina Pintoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely .. Your stepping faith into Cannan's land will reward you good in all ways and your stepping into Egypt will fetch you all the diseases, war, plagues and so on ..

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay, show me which people you feel have it right, these people should be free of disease and war according to you.

                  2. pisean282311 profile image58
                    pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    @rina lol

                  3. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    He planned hunger and disease? What kind of God is he?

              2. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Satan is in control of world affairs but God controls those who love Him and give their will to Him.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LOL! I think Mark, amongst a host of others here, have serious problems with bended knees. lol

      2. pisean282311 profile image58
        pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @claire mark is correct...if jesus is lord , he doesnot need support of mortals to defend him...but i think u r hothead not in defending jesus but defending ur belief....if jesus is lord he is capable of sustaining criticism coming from one of many species in the world ...

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          She will ignore me. She hates anyone who speaks Truth. sad

        2. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So if people thought Jesus was wicked wouldn't a Christian naturally want to set the record straight? Was Jesus not defending God when He came with a whip into the temple? Was He not defending God against the Pharisees? Or ought He just have let them think what they liked and blasphemed God?

          I bet you would defend the one you love if they got hurt by another.

          When you love someone the first thing you want to do is defend them.   Any Christian who has Jesus in their heart ought to know this.   Jesus gets hurt from people who slander Him often because of the wrong perception.  Why can't I explain things the way I see them?

          So let me do things my way.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image59
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Why can't I explain things the way I see them? "

            Because your perception and cognitive functions are badly impaired by religion. Just listen to yourself.

            "Jesus gets hurt"?

            Hence the constant conflict you find yourself in.

          2. pisean282311 profile image58
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @claire jesus wasnt defending god...no god needs to be defended...god is capable of defending oneself as per all scriptures ever written...remember as per your scriptures god made everything including earth and humans?...

            Jesus like you was defending his own believes not GOD....If GOD needs people to defend himself , it would be anti god trait...going by definition of god ...

  19. khmohsin profile image60
    khmohsinposted 4 years ago

    Hi Every one.

    This is a false concept about the messenger to say them wrong. The Almighty God has saved these souls from each and every bad thing. I condemn the usage of bad words against Jesus and Muhammad (PBUH).

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @khmohsin u have right to condemn those who criticize muhammad and jesus...in same way people have right to criticize muhammad and jesus...both r historical figures with human impact (positive and negative) on human beings world over...there are not above criticisms

  20. Praetor profile image60
    Praetorposted 4 years ago

    http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24640190.jpg

  21. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago

    If annihilation were truly a 'penalty' for behavior then we'd all be dead. Don't confuse matters. The flood was a result only necessary because of the choices made by beings with free will. It's clearly not the norm. People go on living everyday behaving outside of God's will.



    Right, so in your view any meaning we assign to life is nothing more than an illusion we're under. I get what you're saying.



    Life, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:
    "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

    Life is clearly more than just chemical/biological processes. When life is present then yes, there are biological processes; homeostasis, growth, adaptation, organization, etc. But we have no idea what the phenomenon of life itself actually is.

    Also, I didn't say belief in God is more logical than scientific exploration. I'm not pitting God and science against one another. I said stating that there is no God is illogical. You, nor anyone else still to this day, can't simply define what life is. So how can anybody make that statement logically?



    Religion is a man-made thing that I won't often defend. My point here, however, is that religion at least takes all of existence into account. There are some very significant components to existence that science is simply unable to address. To base your whole view of existence on strictly what can be detected/observed scientifically is to dismiss a lot of really relevant stuff. Like life, or the human mind, which are both still to this day completely undetectable scientifically.



    Okay, so you're saying you can rule God out? That sure would end a lot of these debates if you could.

    1. Praetor profile image60
      Praetorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What exactly, do you think: "metabolism, growth, reproduction, response to stimuli, and adaptation to the environment" are if not chemical/biochemical processes? 


      Religion doesn't take all of existence into account, it only concerns itself with those aspects of existence that it feels conforms to its own values and beliefs.

      You want to know what the biggest difference is between science and religion? It's that science it still looking for answers; religion is content to just simply believe. Science is pushing forward: exploring the nature of the world around us, studying human biology, investigating the origins of life on Earth, looking for signs of life elsewhere in the Universe; meanwhile, religion is still worried about who can marry who.

      No science doesn't have all the answers, but at least it's still asking the questions.

      Oh if only, yet... here we are.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's exactly what I said, that those are biological processes that signify life is present, but they're not life itself. An organism exhibiting those functions is defined as biologically alive, but those functions are the manifestation of the phenomenon of life itself.

        I completely agree with you about religion. That's probably my single biggest issue with it. Religion places itself in a place of authority of knowledge where it clearly doesn't belong. They're just humans too and have no privileged knowledge of anything above anyone else.

        1. Praetor profile image60
          Praetorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You keep saying things like "life itself" or "the phenomenon of life" like you think that there's some hidden element or chemical that makes us alive.

          The act of something "being alive" is no different than the act of a computer being on and running; as long as the right conditions exist (power, operating system, etc) then the computer will continue to function, when those conditions cease to exist (i.e. when you turn it off, it crashes, etc), your computer ceases to function.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Right. And in your example life would be the electricity. Without it those same components would be life-less. There is no molecular difference between living and dead orgasmic matter. Even the dictionary makes the distinction. Wikipedia makes the distinction. I'm not just making this up.

            1. Praetor profile image60
              Praetorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              big_smile You meant "organic", trust me, that's not one you want to get confused. lol

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hahaha! Yes, I meant organic. I'm typing on my tablet and it likes to make suggestions that it will just go with if you don't watch it.

  22. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    Jesus was without sin, and that includes evil.

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @xenonlit and it is ur belief or do u have any tangible proof to back your statement?

      1. Xenonlit profile image60
        Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you have tangible proof that the Higgs Boson exists or that we spontaneously erupted from the primordial soup?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course we spontaneously emerged from the primordial soup. Why make things more complicated by invoking Majik instead?

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            REALLY???

            Who, (and when was this) concluded?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is accepted scientific theory aka. Given that Majikal Invisible Super Beings cannot exist - the most simple explanation is this. But - if you have a better one - please go ahead and show your proof and evidence.

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Accepted theory = faith in science fiction lol

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry - was that the proof?

                  I mean - you do have some proof that life did not spontaneously arise - right? It needed a Majikal Super Being that did not need to be created itself.. You must have some proof - I mean - no one would think this without some evidence.

                  Seeing as I know you are big on proof. wink

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Where's your proof?

                    Both "theories" are equal, and faith based.

                    Watch > >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIm85YuplJ8

                2. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Emerging from a primordial soup is definitely not a fact.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Coming from you - that is hilarious. Facts seem something of a foreign concept to you.

                    When is the Atomic bomb going off at the Olympics.

                    Oh wait........ It already didn't. lol

                  2. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's what I'm trying to tell "them", but they still hold on to science fiction with all the faith they can muster!

                3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, the dishonesty of that statement only serves to show just how desperate believers are and how low they'll stoop to defend their faith. So many accepted theories brought those very same believers out of their caves so they might be able to freely discredit them on their computers, internet connections and these forums. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so detrimental.

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol lol

                    Talk about desperate!!!!!!!

                    Just because we have an accepted (??) theory by (narrow minded, biased individuals) that is actually refuted and shown to be impossible by known science, does NOT make it so (fact) except in the minds of those who choose to put their faith in fiction.

                    lol lol lol

                    Just go for it guys, I'm sure the feeble minded, indoctrinated and deluded ones will swallow this "hook, line, and sinker"!   lol lol lol (that's the coveted, tripple laughy, BTW)

  23. 0
    Lybrahposted 4 years ago

    No.  He is the son of God.  He was completely sinless.  Have faith.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, Okay I guess, if you say so.

  24. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I love how people attempt to discredit the spiritual with the physical. I don't understand how they can't see how incredibly pointless it is to claim scientific theory as indisputable proof of the foolishness of all beliefs, but I suppose there is enough foolishness to go around. Even for wannabe, but not presently educated to be, scientists.

    1. Praetor profile image60
      Praetorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I love how people attempt to discredit the physical with the spiritual. I don't understand how they can't see how incredibly pointless it is to claim religious mythology as indisputable proof of the foolishness of scientific theory, but I suppose there is enough foolishness to go around. Even for wannabe, but not presently educated to be, theologists.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't claim to be a theologist. However, I don't insist that theological theories are universal fact either.

        1. Praetor profile image60
          Praetorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Science doesn't claim to be "Universal fact" either, that's why we still call them things like: "The Big Bang Theory", and "The Theory Of Evolution".

          Science is all best-guess based on what we know from observing the world around us, not what we're told to believe because of a 2,000 year old collection of mythology.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Very nice. It appears I know this and you know this. You might try convincing the fanatics who think science is a religion.

            1. Praetor profile image60
              Praetorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'll tell you what, I'll make you a deal: I'll talk to "my guys" when you talk to yours...

              To be certain, a large segment of the atheist community is comprised of (pardon my indelicate language here) misguided @ssholes; however, they're not in the habit of flying planes into buildings or declaring a "Geo-had" on people of opposing viewpoints.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't need to talk to my guys. Point me to an agnostic who doesn't already understand this very basic and simple point and I'll be glad to oblige you. smile

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What Atheists think science is a religion? Atheists and science do not go hand in hand. All people of science are not Atheists and all Atheists are not interested in science. That being said if you ask an Atheist how we got here most will side with science. They don't think science is a religion they think science trumps religion. Rather a big difference.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I love this place. You wanna know why? Because confusion abounds. I know this, however my comments were directed at people who draw broad conclusions that cannot be verified and then proceed to argue them as unarguable truths.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol Priceless.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It was nicely done. Unfortunately, you both missed the point. smile

  25. Lady_E profile image82
    Lady_Eposted 4 years ago

    Save your time and read through the Bible yourself - Just the New Testament (to make it easy)

    1. Brian in Canada profile image59
      Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have read the Bible and afterwards I have a uncontrolable need to wash my hands and promise myself never to follow such immoral and evil doctrines.

  26. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    Claire,

    Pearls before swine:)

    I just want you to know there are a few who actually know that you know what the hell you are talking about.

    It's a lonely road, yes. But it's the right road.

    1. pisean282311 profile image58
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      @janesix u r right...atheist road is really lonely road but the right road...

  27. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    Well said, Praetor! Dont keep the faith!

  28. mrscrowleey1029 profile image60
    mrscrowleey1029posted 4 years ago

    If one part of it is LIE then I WHOLE thing is a lie! I believe in bible it a %100 but that's just me

  29. getitrite profile image81
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k286/mrommyan/emoticon/shocked.png

  30. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago

    I've spent a lot of time studiously avoiding this thread.  Checking in occasionally to see what folks have to say, but not offering my own opinion.  And - it is indeed only an opinion that I offer.  I've studied the life of Christ in great detail over the course of my adult life - through Scripture of course, but also through other sources.  I'm not going to go into any detail about what He did or did not do while He walked the earth, but I certainly do not believe He ever committed an act of evil.

    HOWEVER, I'd like to propose this question:  If Jesus ever committed even a single act of evil, does that take away the good that was done throughout HIS lifetime?  And, if it does, then does a single act of good take away the evil done by someone like - oh, say Hitler?  Stalin?  Whomever you feel to be the most evil person who ever lived.

    In the end, we are all so quick to jump on one thing to throw out an entire life (or for some an entire concept).  There's really SO MUCH MORE to consider overall.

    1. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You cannot compare Jesus to the rest of mankind.  Jesus could not save the world from sin and be guilty of it Himself.  It means He would have lost to the devil.   It means we would have chosen Satan over the Father.

      It's different for us.  If we commit a sin it doesn't mean we disregard all the good we have done in our lives.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I beg to differ.  You can indeed compare Jesus to the rest of mankind.  He was as human as the rest of us.  I think you missed the point of my post, though.  I do not believe that Jesus ever committed a single evil act.  For those who do not believe that Christ is the Son of God, who simply see him as human, and may believe that He did wrong in His lifetime - it's important to recognize that the good FAR outweighs everything else.

        That's all I meant.  I had no intention of arguing with you, Claire, or of being contentious.

        Now I remember why I avoided this thread as long as I did.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I meant one cannot compare Jesus with mankind when it comes to this issue.

          I know you were theoretically speaking.  I didn't believe it was your view.  My answer was for those who may think along the lines of your theoretical question.

          The point of this forum topic was to pose the question if He ever did any evil not whether doing anything wrong made Him a bad person. 

          What good would Jesus have achieved if pointing out the evil in everybody else but did not address His own evil, hypothetically? How can a non believer respect Jesus if they can read He claimed to be the redeemer of the world yet sinned? How can non believers respect Jesus when they know He claimed to be the son of God and they believe that is a lie?

          When one claims, like Jesus, to be the complete antithesis to evil, one cannot respect Jesus just because He "mostly did good works".  Any good Jesus would have committed in this hypothesis would make it hypocritical.



          Motown, I didn't jump down your throat.  You are being too defensive here.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't mean to come across as defensive, Claire.  I apologize.  Thanks for clarifying.  big_smile

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sure, no problem.  smile

  31. calynbana profile image86
    calynbanaposted 4 years ago

    Very good point Motown. I agree with you entirely.

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks.  smile  I just read your dreaded Christian hub.  Sounds a little like my own story.

      1. calynbana profile image86
        calynbanaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? Well its nice to know that people are stumbling into Christians who are not of the dreaded variety haha

  32. Brian in Canada profile image59
    Brian in Canadaposted 4 years ago

    There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus, if he actually exsisted, is the most wicked man in the Bible.

    1. thirdmillenium profile image71
      thirdmilleniumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for the joke, a very enjoyable one.  I will recommend this joke to all and sundry

    2. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What's your obsession with Jesus? How can you say Jesus is worse than Moses ordering rape of virgins?

      I didn't see you on my 9-11 forum thread.  It was started for you.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What's your obsession with Jesus?

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't have an obsession.  I just adore Him. 

          A non believer shouldn't have this level of obsession with Jesus and just repeat the same thing over and over again despite the fact he has been proven wrong.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He has been proven wrong? I must have missed that one.

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, you need to go back a couple of pages.

  33. SpanStar profile image59
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    If Jesus was in fact evil according to man's standards how then is his crime of subverting the people by not supporting paying taxes?

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Jesus_charged_with

    Mark 12:17

    New International Version
    Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.

    "My kingdom is not of this world." - John 18:36

    Is this justification for crucifixion?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, but some parts of the middle east iare still stoning to death adulterers?

      1. SpanStar profile image59
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ignorance runs rampant in the world. People do things believing they are doing the right thing but God is not going to hold us blameless especially if we don't change our ways. The believer as well as the non-believer will be judged when the time comes.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The reason much of the ignorance and bad things that happen (like stoning an adulterer) happens is because of what was written in the holy books. The bible often describes when and how to kill people and even commit genocide. Will he judge himself? Will he judge us by following his actions and words?

          1. SpanStar profile image59
            SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            By it showing up in the Bible it might appear that God is at the forefront of these actions. It is my understanding however that God is simply going along with mankind's chosen way of life. It is how man conducted his life and so in order to communicate with someone you both have to speak the same language. I am quite certain that talking to mankind at that point in time suggesting that they love their enemies those people would've probably thought God was crazy.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Please forgive me but that is possible the biggest copout I've ever heard. The creator of the universe, the omni everything God can't figure out how to tell people to love each other without sounding crazy so he tells them when and how to commit genocide?

              1. SpanStar profile image59
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Rad Man,

                This is the last I'll say on the subject to you because I believe you have your own ideas and I can't affect that.

                If getting through to people was is easy as you make it out to be why haven't we stop the killing among each other?

                God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge one would think that was enough but it wasn't was it?

                This planet should be a world of peace but we haven't stop murdering since Cain and Abel. Apparently it is not only God who has a problem with getting people to do the right thing.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  God telling people to commit genocide is the right thing? Sounds more like a story told to give people a sense of entitlement.

                2. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I suggest that, in reality, we humans are simply a species of animal, subject to all the material happenings around us.  These happenings can support our existence or threaten it.   We learn by various means the skills and habits that tend to protect and defend us from everything that might bring about our demise.   This is the general principle which allows any living thing to survive and flourish.

                  However, when the human mind (very clever and innovative) builds up belief systems it is part of the survival instinct.  Religion and all its trappings is nothing more nor less than attempting to acquire power and mastery over inferior members of the tribe, thus ensuring a better chance of survival for the believer.   

                  This is how I regard your references to "god."   Real for you, in your imagination, but not automatically real for anyone else.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this



                    I can agree with this statement when referring to organized religion. However, there are some that view their religion as a personal life philosophy that is only applicable to the individual.

            2. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think that your argument makes sense.  For one thing, god had NO problem telling people what to do or what not to do that were contrary to lifestyles and cultures of the time - specifically, not worshiping other gods, not stealing, not murdering, not bearing false witness, etc. 

              What I don't understand is that god commanded the Israelites not to murder - and then instructed them to massacre men, women children, infants - rip babies from the womb of pregnant women and then to kill everyone but the virgins - the virgins can be kept as sex slaves.  Does the fact that behavior may have been typical in the time make it acceptable?  If so, why did god command the Jews to undergo circumcision.  Why did he instruct them on idols?  Wouldn't he have just fit into the surrounding cultural norms, if that's what you're claiming?

            3. A Thousand Words profile image80
              A Thousand Wordsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If He's supposed to be a standard of the highest morality, why should He care what they'd think? I've heard that excuse used for people. But isn't God supposed to be "above" man. Why should he then go along with their atrocious ways of life unless he condoned/ordered it and/or did not see it as wicked?

              1. SpanStar profile image59
                SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not sure if your question is directed towards me but if it is my explanation is this.

                People want to put God in the same frame of mind as humans and God is far beyond that.

                When God finished his work of creating man he gave man freedom and dominion over the world. Mankind is thinking if they were in charge might say the same thing but constantly checking you out and seeing what you're doing wrong so they can correct you. God on the other hand gives you absolute freedom it would make no sense to give you freedom and constantly be telling you what to do.

                The kind of world that man creates is entirely left up to them and if they create a world where lawlessness is tolerated then so be it. If they create a world where trust and honesty is valued so be it. Now God might offer suggestions as to what might make a good life in our free will gives us the option whether or not to choose that advice.

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  How does one practice, and ALLOW "complete" freedom, yet not "tolerate" lawlessness? 

                  And, with all due respect, what exactly do you think the Bible is if it is NOT a record of God constantly telling us what to do?

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He doesn't 'go along with it' so much as allow people to actually be human beings. Unfortunately that does mean that people will do bad things (by almost anyone's standard) and suffer the consequences, of which they have been warned.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Still threatening in God's name I see. No wonder you guys are despised by so many. Feel free to email me and apologize wink.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    smile

                    As soon as I'm no longer misrepresented, I will apologize for it.

  34. waynet profile image46
    waynetposted 3 years ago

    Yes....he was evil....that damn bearded made up bed time story man!

  35. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago

    He got pissed at a fig tree when it didn't magically sprout figs on-command and cursed it. That sounds pretty shady.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      lo

    2. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't think that was right. So I looked it up. And I was right.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Mark 11:12-14
        12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
        13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
        14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

        Matthew 21:18-19
        18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
        19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

        (Fun Fact: Matthew says the fig tree withered right away, while Mark 11:20-25 says the fig tree didn't wither until the next day. THE BIBLE HAS NO CONTRADICTIONS!!)

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What you said was that Jesus got mad because the tree didn't magically sprout fruit. He didn't.

    3. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You've got to know the context about this.  So here I shall explain it:

      Luke 13:6-9 (NIV)
      "6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
      8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
      Are human "souls" as disposable as a barren tree?

      With every action Jesus did there was always a meaning behind it. 

      Here's an excellent analysis:

      "We plant apple trees because we want apples, peach trees because we want peaches, orange trees because we want oranges, and fig trees because we want figs. We might as well ask what good is an apple tree that doesn't produce apples? You might as well cut it down. Or curse it, as Jesus did the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-19).

      How did Jesus know the fig tree was barren? Because the leaves and the fruit typically appear at about the same time. To see a fig tree covered with leaves but with no fruit meant that it was barren.

      Three insights will help us understand this story. First, in the Old Testament the fig tree often stood as a symbol for the nation of Israel (Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 9:10). Second, we also need to observe that the cursing of the fig tree occurs on Monday of Jesus's Passion Week, four days before his crucifixion. Third, this story is placed next to the story of Jesus cleansing the temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 21:12-17). The money lenders had turned the Lord's house into a den of thieves. They were profiteers who exchanged foreign currency and also sold the animals that worshipers from distant towns would buy to sacrifice before the Lord. By shrewd marketing they could charge exorbitant rates and make a killing off the pilgrims who came to worship. The whole scene angered our Lord because he knew that the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations.

      Cursing the fig tree was Jesus's way of saying that the whole nation had become spiritually barren before the Lord. They had the form of religion but not the reality. They knew the right words to say, but their hearts were far from God."

  36. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Jesus was completely grounded in His love for God. He was tempted by the devil and chose God/Reality instead of whatever the devil/delusion offered. How could someone committed to God one hundred percent be evil or do anything evil?

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      When you have a fantasy story as the one you've offered, anything could be possible. Yes, there could be a God that never does evil in a fantasy story.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The very essence of God/Pure Spirit is 100% Goodness. And that is not a fantasy story. Jesus said don't call me Good, Call my Father, (the essence of His being and of all of Our beings,) Good.
        The Pure Spirit of all of Us is Goodness.
        The source of wisdom, logic and love is Pure Spirit.
        TWISI

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No room for outside goodness, it always urkks me when Christian say.
          "That is a good person because he is Christian"

          Mean wail as a group, they have the worst behavior overall, wars, prisons, natural environment, nukes and ect...

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            aw… thats just their egos…
            darn egos.

 
working