Parents slam 'disgusting' After School Satan Club for children as young as five

submitted by [deleted] from mirror.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Seriously? How is Jesus bad?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It's bad for anyone to be taught to feel ashamed of themselves especially their sexuality, and its bad for society to have people who have externalised blame and judge all things as plain right or wrong.

Any prescribed ethics is worse morally and worse for intellectual development than a considered ethics. Some of the ethical problems with Jesus are:

1) Hatred of Homosexuals.
2) Intolerance of Atheists.
3) Intolerance of other religions.
4) Favouritism towards other Christians.

And in the past it has been used to justify racism, slavery and even genocide.

Having people in power over ethics creates the problems you get with absolute power. The clergy is attractive to sexual predators, and there are a lot of people leveraging Jesus to get poor people to send them all their money.

Some of the intellectual problems related to Jesus include science:

1) Evolution. There is a natural delight in discovery of flora and fauna, especially long extinct mega-fauna, that creationists deny their children.
2) Climate change. It's weird that this is linked to religion in america, but it is. Religious people maybe think that God will come and clean up after them. But we stand in the middle of a catastrophe. Well the God-squad sit in the middle of a catastrophe.

And vulnerability to political manipulation:
3) Poor religious people tend to vote against their own interests. This is bad for the economy as policies exploiting the lower classes become so extreme that growth is inhibited.
4) Religious people are more Xenophobic than atheists. This makes them more vulnerable to demagoguery.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There is a natural delight in discovery of flora and fauna, especially long extinct mega-fauna, that creationists deny their children.

🤣

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

None of the things you described are problems with Jesus. As a matter of fact his face would be boiling over the things done in his name. See you're already falling for the false flag operations.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

None of the things you described are problems with Jesus.

They're problems with believing he is divine.

As a matter of fact his face would be boiling over the things done in his name.

His historicity at all has only weak evidence. No one who met him wrote anything down. No one who met anyone who met him wrote anything down.

You really can't know how hot his face would get, since all accounts of him are filtered by generations of oral retelling, assuming he existed at all.

See you're already falling for the false flag operations.

Nevertheless leading honest people away is only a based thing.

"Judge a tree by the fruit it bears", as he has reputedly said. “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit; neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

I say, based call to that.

Belief in his divinity is a very negative influence on the world.

It is, in the words of the late great Hitch, "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children".

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Again, those are characteristics of organized religion, not belief in his divinity. He himself railed against organized religion and all those aspects of it. Nor is there any reason to think organized satanism would be any different.

I disagree that we have no real information about him. It's true we don't know who exactly recorded the information, and that later editors combined it in different ways. But there are a huge number of things they all agree on, and those things are so right I just can't see a human making them up.

By the way, Jesus was anti Old Testament law. Unfortunately an interpolation in Matthew made this confusing. Ironically it is the Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew that proves it, because in this section it abruptly changes from fluent Hebrew full of wordplay to awful language clearly derived from an overly literal translation of a Greek or Latin text (meaning it was originally missing and had to be copied from a non-Hebrew source). Afterword it reverts back to normal and he starts condemning various Old Testament laws. See Marcion's gospel for proof that Luke 16:17 was changed from "my words" to "the law". Using "the law" here is contradictory.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But there are a huge number of things they all agree on, and those things are so right I just can't see a human making them up.

Most historians agree that he was from Nazareth. Because if you were going to make a messiah be born in Jerusalem to meet the prophesies, and you were going to make him up out of whole cloth, you would just make him from Jerusalem.

The obvious cock-and-bull story about having to travel to a city you don't live in to be counted by a census that only counted Roman citizens is too stupid.

But it's not strong evidence. They may have just been fitting some myth about being born in a stable to their Messiah.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions. We don't have any real information about Jesus's birth and childhood.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The first two chapters of Matthew and Luke are later additions.

Nonetheless that is the best evidence of Jesus' historicity: If you were going to make it up out of whole cloth you would do it in a way that doesn't insult the intelligence (if any) of your devotees.

It's evidence, but it's not strong evidence.

We don't have any real information about Jesus's birth and childhood.

Neither do we about his adulthood and death.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

His adulthood and death is widely agreed upon, even by his contemporary enemies. On the other hand there were multiple sects who called out the infancy stuff as fraudulent.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's nothing that can be identified as events that occurred, if you're an unbaised historian.

There's no primary and no secondary sources. There's no sources independent of the early Christian's sources. So there's no evidence it's not just myth.

A lot of people think he was crucified. Again the evidence for that is weak. Weaker than the from Nazareth thing, and along the same lines. If you were going to make him up out of whole cloth you wouldn't have such a humiliating death. I find the humiliation central to the story of the passion, and have no difficulty believing it could be made up.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13812