this post was submitted on
1,298 points (57% like it)
4,798 up votes 3,500 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 124 comments

[–]Hipstersince89 130 points131 points ago

Does it weird anyone else out that his hand is right in his butt cheeks? Or maybe it's just me...

[–]cumfarts 103 points104 points ago

that's how you carry a jesus. sort of like the scruff of the neck on a cat

[–]Combicritter 50 points51 points ago

I have always wondered what the correct method to carry a messiah was. Now I know.

[–]regal360 33 points34 points ago

he's a squirmer.

[–]Sventertainer 35 points36 points ago

Probably because you've got your hand in his ass ಠ_ಠ

[–]fishnetdiver 12 points13 points ago

or you just hook your fingers through his feet-holes and carry him like a six-pack

[–]OryxConLara 2 points3 points ago

I upvoted you, but the thought of a six-pack of jesuses gives me the begeezuses

[–]Jackomo 24 points25 points ago

I think the artist knew exactly what he was doing.

[–]Hipstersince89 12 points13 points ago

I might have to agree with you on that.

[–]MajesticPolarBear 9 points10 points ago

It's not really in his but, he's firmly grasping the right cheek to insure a safe escape.

[–]binbomsj 8 points9 points ago

He's god! He must have such a great ass, he could turn Santorum gay.

[–]LeBacon 10 points11 points ago

Look at a picture of Santorum and tell me this guy isnt gay. I mean, come on. Plus the flaming homophobia makes it even more obvious.

[–]Aavagadrro 4 points5 points ago

They can pray and pray but the gay wont go away.

[–]cinebox 0 points1 point ago

So we meet again, godly penis guy...

[–]binbomsj 0 points1 point ago

My memory is a little shoddy, so you may need to explain that comment to me.

[–]cinebox 0 points1 point ago

I don't even know either, I just have you tagged as "wants to be a godly penis"

[–]binbomsj 0 points1 point ago

Well shit, who doesn't?!?

[–]binbomsj 0 points1 point ago

Woah, Deja Vu...

[–]OG_Willikers 2 points3 points ago

He's just trying to get closer to the holy of holies.

[–]mustardjones 5 points6 points ago

He should have used the spear hole for leverage...carried him like a six pack of beer.

oooooohhhhhhhhhh. that was uncouth. I know.

[–]Mikroformel 2 points3 points ago

its just you..

[–]heimdal77 1 point2 points ago

ohh i think it's farther in than that, why you think he's screaming???

[–]keeblur 56 points57 points ago

Relevant : MadTV skit

[–]Fritchard 4 points5 points ago

what are you, a glutton for punishment?

[–]mswizzy3 3 points4 points ago

I remembered the same skit when I saw this comic, good link

[–]Ixidane 1 point2 points ago

Forgive him, father. He is a robot from the future.

[–]kfsie1 2 points3 points ago

STOP STOP KILLING JUDAS

[–]irawwwr 1 point2 points ago

Still better than the actual T3

[–]goal2004 0 points1 point ago

Bless this film.

[–]Psychicthriller 0 points1 point ago

Hasta la vista, baby Jesus.

[–]arrr2d2 60 points61 points ago

That's so illogical. The terminator can't time travel with his leather jacket, sunglasses, and shotgun.

[–]-Hastis- 7 points8 points ago

Replace the shotgun with a Roman Crossbow then xD

[–]rawn53 33 points34 points ago

A fictional character is rescuing a fictional character using a fictional method of time travel, and you take exception to the clothes?

[–]SpiritHeretic 41 points42 points ago

Someone doesn't understand the concept of logic abiding by rules in a fictional universe.

Yes, fictional universes actually have rules. Good ones, anyway.

[–]Ixidane 2 points3 points ago

whathaveyoudone.jpg

(on a side note, am I the only person on earth who can't get those stupid face thingies to work?)

[–]baltakatei 1 point2 points ago

[–]glasswing 1 point2 points ago

Damn you, I was going to be productive this weekend.

[–]PolityAgent 1 point2 points ago

But why worry about nitpicks that are easily fixed with trivial handwaving? For example, while you were out getting popcorn, you missed the scene where Jesus turn water into leather jacket, jeans, boots, shotgun, sunglasses, and the motorcycle.

Right. The motorcycle. You're probably wondering why the terminator is walking. You missed that scene too. Great stunt work.

[–]LeBacon 0 points1 point ago

It called the James Cameron Rules.

[–]Aavagadrro 0 points1 point ago

Well at lest he fixed the sky for the scene where Jack dies of hypothermia while that red headed tart takes up all the space on the driftwood.

[–]kim_bruning 0 points1 point ago

rule of funny. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFunny (warning:TV tropes)

[–]rawn53 0 points1 point ago

I'm mostly saying that we're suspending our disbelief for a joke already, why nitpick about the minutiae?

[–]SpiritHeretic 4 points5 points ago

I think he's joking about nitpicking, actually.

[–]rawn53 2 points3 points ago

And here we are nitpicking the nitpicking. Yay internet!

[–]iamaiamscat 0 points1 point ago

He was joking, you are not.

[–]arrr2d2 0 points1 point ago

It's the Donny Darko school of philosophy (q.v. Illogical Smurfs rant.)

[–]T_A-way -1 points0 points ago

Jesus ain't fictional! He's real!

[–]skyshadow42 4 points5 points ago

Jesus the man probably was. Some of his acts may be slightly... over reported.

[–]ADIDASyesADIDAS -1 points0 points ago

x-post everything done by messiahs before him...interesting

[–]mniejiki 1 point2 points ago

Why do you think he took 35 years to find jesus, making a shotgun from scratch isn't easy even for a robot from the future.

And you really don't want to know where he kept those sunglasses when he went through time.

[–]PraiseBeToScience 10 points11 points ago

So we'll end up worshiping a terminator?

[–]AngryScientist 13 points14 points ago

Something would definitely take its place. Bullshit hates a vacuum.

[–]Ihavenospecialskills 2 points3 points ago

Instead of the story being about Jesus rising in three days, it would be about an avenging angel showing up and murdering everyone that dared to harm Jesus before carrying him away (to Heaven?).

[–]Jeezafobic 3 points4 points ago

End up? I already like crazy Arnold more.

[–]Jawnson 2 points3 points ago

Eventually, yes. Skynet will be online soon enough. Evil Laughter

[–]mustardjones 1 point2 points ago

I would worship the hot one from Terminator 3. Many times a day. If you get my drift (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean)

[–]soylentdream 2 points3 points ago

Objectifying a woman from a movie about killer robots and including masturbation innuendo and a Monty Python reference. Congratulations, sir! You have mad skills!

[–]dumnezero 8 points9 points ago

I will have to ask a christian this (one who likes time travel fiction), one day:

would you travel back in time to save Jesus from being crucified?

[–]PraiseBeToScience 15 points16 points ago

I think you should ask all Christians this. It'd be interesting to see their response. They basically have to choose between taking away the so-called sacrifice, or agreeing that brutal torture and murder is sometimes the 100% moral thing to do.

[–]lavandris 13 points14 points ago

Judging by most of what I see on here, Christians are pretty ok with brutal torture and murder.

[–]mexicodoug 2 points3 points ago

Unless it's done by a Muslim. Then it's Guantanamo or drone strike.

[–]Tsunderella 1 point2 points ago

So they just reciprocate then?

[–]lavandris 0 points1 point ago

Oh, of course. Or anyone else outside of that individual's specific denomination.

[–]glasswing 1 point2 points ago

I'd say the argument would go "it was in God's plan to have Jesus sacrifice himself to atone for our sins, Jesus agreed with this*, it is not our place to interfere".

*"Also, even though Jesus is apparently a separate entity capable of independent thought, we are absolutely monotheistic - holy trinity, ghost, something something."

[–]donthurtthisguy 1 point2 points ago

As a former Christian I can tell you the.... I don't know... correct? response. No, you should not try to save Christ from the cross. His death on the cross was the only reason he was here in the first place. Not only that but if you did try to stop his crucifixion you shouldn't be able to succeed. One thing that always did bother me was why did his death have to be so brutal? Supposedly the torture for him was to be separated from God the Father directly after his death, theoretically he should have been able to just be decapitated. I guess that you could argue that you could go back in time and just shoot him... I don't know I'm gonna to stop rambling now...

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points ago

it's good to ramble to yourself; it means there are creative thoughts going on, like doodling

[–]greym84 2 points3 points ago

TL;DR first: To prevent Jesus from being crucified would deny God what he wanted most: to be made right with the creation he loves so much. To prevent Jesus from being crucified would prevent our entire world (the people, the planet, everything) from ever hoping to one day be made right again. But through Jesus God won back his creation from Death and we now have a hope that one day all things will be made new. Why would I stop that?

For a more in depth response or clarification for all that crazy talk here ya go:

Christianity has become so preoccupied with simplifying the story of Jesus that they have reduced it to some guy 2000 years ago "died for my sins." In its most simplistic form, I suppose that works, but it really disregards the full story.

I'm not looking to convert or convince anyone here. This isn't an argument for Christianity, rather how going back in time and stopping Jesus being crucified wouldn't fit within the greater Christian framework. In short, it's bad theology.

If you start in Genesis you have a good god who creates a good creation. This is the Hebrew narrative, which flew in the face of most (if not all) mythologies of the time. Take the Babylonian myth in which the pantheon of gods deceive and war with each other. Marduk kills the evil Tiamat and fashions the earth from her and humans are created as slaves to the gods.

The Hebrew god chooses one of his creations to bear his image, to give a creature the ability to think and love in the way God does, in a way no other animal is capable. Humans have right relationship with themselves, other humans, and God. In Genesis, creation is good and humans—God’s image bearers—are told to procreate and "subdue the earth” (Eden was not a resort, there was work to be done).

At the Fall, you have a story in which humanity (represented by Adam) is convinced that God is holding out on them and decides to rebel. It turns out God was holding out, he had given them all of the goodness and had withheld the badness. Their actions brought sin into the world, bringing with it death, decay, pain, suffering, etc. (embodied for our purposes as Death, with a capital D). Our image bearingness was fractured. The first thing that happens is Adam and Eve realize something is wrong with themselves (shame from nakedness). They then blame each other when questioned by God. Then they realize that, because God is perfect, and they are no longer perfect, that their relationship with God is broken.

Theists often have a hard time answering the Problem of Evil, but one thing is for sure, the Christian God was not idle regarding it. He set out to make it right. He chose a group of nomads, hunter-gatherers, to be his people. He made a Covenant, a promise to Abraham, that the world would be made right through his descendents. As this people group grew, God gave them the Law, the Torah, a way to live. These people soon became 12 tribes, later became a chiefdom (rule by judges), and later retook the land where Eden once was and settled there in a city-state. God gave them a king and they were the nation of Israel.

I just covered a lot of history, but it's important to understand that during this time God dwelled among the Hebrews, but he was holy, which means "set apart." Because he was perfect and humans were not, he could not be directly among them. For this reason he dwelled in the Ark of the Covenant during conquest and when the temple was built his earthly presence dwelled in what was called the "holiest of holies" a portion of the temple separated by a series of chambers and finally a very thick curtain. It took a lot of ritual cleansing for a single high priest to enter.

The nation of Israel underwent four major occupations (as foretold in Daniel, regarding the four beasts). The king or the people would often displease God and he would basically take his hands off the situation and they would be conquered. During this time, there were promises through prophets that God would give Israel a king that would make things right. Most Israelites took it to mean king would militaristically rise up and conquer the world for Israel.

The fourth occupation of Israel was under Rome. The Israelites still hoped for this king, this Messiah, to come deliver them from foreign oppression and one day a rather charismatic guy named John the Baptist started saying that the "Kingdom of God" was near. This language fit with what had developed to Jewish eschatology (belief about the end times, developed through prophetic texts like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.). God would establish his kingdom on earth through Israel and in the last days there would be a bodily resurrection.

There had been plenty of people claiming to be this Messiah. They all either lost momentum, were quickly killed by the Roman government (as to claim kingship opposed Caesar), or were exposed as frauds. Jesus was not the first person to come along claiming to be this Messiah. But his message was a very peculiar one. The Jews believed that by being Jewish, by their ethnicity, they had been given the Torah (God's Law). By simply possessing the Law, they were God's people. Many, particularly a Jewish sect of theologians and Rabbis (priests) called Pharisees, held strict standards for following the Law. They were the fundamentalist of the first century.

It was rather curious when a great rabbi named Jesus started claiming to be this Messiah. Yet, he didn't always follow the Torah, the Law, in the way they wanted. He did all sorts of counter-cultural things like love sinners, forgive prostitutes, heal on the commanded day of rest, respect women, care for the poor. When he loved sinners, they would ask how he could do such a thing. He would point out that they were sinners too. Just because they kept the Torah on the outside, didn't mean they were keeping it on the inside.

Jesus also claimed was that he was God's son, who was also one with God (we're not going to get into trinitarian doctrine here, suffice to say that Christians believe in three persons of what is one god). Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. Well, you can't be the most loving person ever and do a lot of miracles without getting some popularity. He was well liked, but Jewish leadership thought he was a heretic and one thing led to another and he was executed.

At this point, his followers thought they had bet on the wrong guy. He was just another false messiah. But three days later, the most peculiar thing happened, the man Jesus, who claimed to be God the Messiah, came back to life.

Why wouldn't I stop the crucifixion? Let's apply this history to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Jews had a complex sacrificial system, so the idea of God dying for their sins, of being the perfect sacrifice would have resonated. Why was this necessary? Humans brought Death into the world, God came and in the perfect sacrifice undid Death. Jewish theologians were looking for a king who would defeat their physical enemies, the kingdoms that held them captive. Yet, as the Jews believed that in a future age there would be a bodily resurrection, that the effects of the fall would be undone, they had here a person claiming to be their Messiah who defeated the ultimate enemy: death.

Through Jesus, our broken status as God's image bearers was made right. Jesus was the perfect man that Adam couldn't be. He was perfect king that Israel couldn't have. His death made it so that the broken relationships that humans have with themselves, other humans, and God could be redeemed.

Though humans could not keep up their end of the deal, although Israel failed God again and again, God upheld his promises and gave them the king they really needed. He didn’t give them a king with military power, he gave them a king that could deal with the real issue. He could deal with their hearts, he could deal with the brokenness in the world, he could overthrow the power of Death.

Jesus spent around 40 days on earth after his resurrection. He taught that his actions didn’t just redeem Israel, but that God had—through Jesus—made all of creation right with God. To be Jewish and to have the Law wasn’t good enough, because the Law couldn’t deal with a sinful heart. Jesus was not merely the king of the Jews, but rather king of all creation.

The age of humanity’s separation from God had come to an end, but the last days, when all will be made right have yet to come. We are in between those ages. New life is being born, but it’s not quite birthed fully. Jesus’ resurrection was the eschatological event—the event that was supposed to happen at the end—that was brought to the middle of history. In doing so, the message is not just reserved for a certain people group, but for the whole world. When Jesus prayed that God’s “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” he literally meant that the perfect world that God lives in it will break into earth. It means that God is presently at work and that there is hope in the darkness. The temple curtain has been undone. God now dwells in and among us. That’s the Gospel, which translates “Good News” and we are to tell others about it, not so that they can be in a club or have fire insurance, but so that they can participate in this God’s coming kingdom of hope and healing and love and right relationship.

To prevent Jesus from being crucified would deny God what he wanted most: to be made right with the creation he loves so much. To prevent Jesus from being crucified would prevent our entire world (the people, the planet, everything) from ever hoping to one day be made right again. But through Jesus God won back his creation from Death and we now have a hope that one day all things will be made new. Why would I stop that?

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

Why would I stop that?

To prevent injustice, to save the guy.

[–]greym84 1 point2 points ago

Well, the question is how would a Christian respond. As I argued at length, Jesus came to bring ultimate justice. His death and resurrection was all about justification.

We have no problems in books and movies when our hero sacrifices himself for the greater good. It's a crummy movie, but it makes the point: If you could save Bruce Willis at the end of Armageddon would you? Of course not. First of all, he willingly sacrificed his life. Second, to save him means the entire earth was doomed.

[–]agnostics_make_sense 1 point2 points ago

pff... as a Christian I'd just bring a lethal injection back in time with me. If the guy needed to die so badly it didn't need to be so painful.

but that assumes the death was required to happen at the age of 33.

I see no reason why the death couldn't have been postponed, I mean if Jesus can just resurrect people or send them to heaven I see no reason why he couldn't have stuck around longer, mayebe even be alive present day -spreading the word of his father in a way that we would actually believe. Although there is the argument that he died at the same age that Adam sinned, and this sacrifice was a perfect tradeoff. A perfect 33 year Jesus life to attone for the first sin of a 33 year old Adam.

But, one thing I never understood - was what about Eve? Sure, Jesus' sacrifice paid for Adam's sin. But what about Eve's? Oh, that's right. According to the scriptures written by our all loving father women are just property with an unfortunate mind of it's own.

[–]greym84 0 points1 point ago*

It's theologically controversial how much Jesus suffered. Crucifixion is one of the worst ways a person could die. Would lethal injection have sufficed or was part of the substitutionary atonement the torture that led to his death? And when he died, where did he go? Did he suffer hell for 3 days, cease to have consciousness, or return to the Father? edit: To some degree, Jesus prayer in Gethsemane seems to indicate that Jesus' suffering to some degree was necessary. He was willing but terrified.

I don't think Jesus' age was significant other than about 33 he had built his ministry and the events that needed to happen were coming to fruition. It could have been 34. There's no indication of Adam's age when he sinned and it's debatable that a historical Adam existed (though Paul seems to think so, and that's something).

It seems odd that Jesus would be resurrected and then just take off. But Jesus addresses this problem and says quite clearly that now that new life is brought forth in him, that there is work to be done. Just like in Gen 1:28 ("subdue the earth"), he's really done his part and it's up to us to continue it. It's not that God is dependent on humans, which is exactly why the Holy Spirit comes. Jesus leaves, only give us something better. Jesus, as the Son aspect of the Trinity, can't indwell us. However, now that he has torn the curtain of the holy of hollies, God's spirit can now dwell in us. Your body is a temple.

As to Eve. Jesus was quite counter-cultural with women. He allowed them to disregard their culturally expected duties (namely cooking and hostessing) and sit at his feet and learn in a position traditionally reserved for men. Furthermore, the people who first discovered the resurrected Jesus were women, whose accounts at the time were culturally considered unreliable. If you wanted to substantiate a historical claim, a female's account was not the way to go.

Jesus was the first fruit of new Creation. To try and break that down out of Christianese (Christian jargon), Jesus actually coming back from the dead established that he was the son of God that he claimed to be and the king over all creation. The issue is not to get too caught up in gender. It is to recognize that the first humans failed to bear God's image properly, and that Christ redeemed that failure. Jesus as the "new Adam", though significant in some ways, is really shorthand for the greater argument I've made.

Women in the early church were highly respected. It wasn't until Montanism that Christians distanced themselves from female leadership. But if you read Paul's account of Phoebe and Junia, you find that he thinks very highly of women. Furthermore, Pliny the Elder is said to have tortured to clergy women to further understand Christianity. They must have had some status if he found that worth his while. Montanism was a heretical cult that put a large emphasis on the female role, and among other things (including tongues) the church as a whole seems to have overreacted by distancing itself from any practice that might give a Montanists impression. Don't mistake history for theology.

[–]agnostics_make_sense 1 point2 points ago*

Just trying to straighten this out here.

It is to recognize that the first humans failed to bear God's image properly, and that Christ redeemed that failure.

So Jesus died to atone that a perfect man, Adam, sinned. The sin of which that is described in the scriptures is simply not following a divine commandment to avoid consuming the fruit of a certain tree.

To make amends, how was torture necessary? It's not as if Adam kidnapped an Angel and tortured then killed it. It's not as if Adam tortured his wife or offspring. He sinned, by stealing fruit which God claimed as his own. Perhaps if you made the argument that Jesus had to die the death of a thief (because that is what Adam was to God) it might make sense. But God decreed throughout the hebrew scriptures that the proper way to execute was by stoning, whether it be thievery, adultery, or murder. The punishment and method was the same. Therefore, unless God approved of the pagan Roman's method of torturing and killing their criminals - the torture of Jesus was highly unnecessary. Keep in mind also that the cross upon which he died was a pagan symbol used in worship of the sun. It would not make sense to approve. Therefore the idea to torture him was created by men, or you could argue "the devil's influence."

Although Christ might have regarded women highly, the godly appointed prophets of the Hebrew scriptures did not. Neither did Timothy. Additionally no mention is made in the Greek scriptures regarding Eve's sin. After all, Eve was actually the first to sin, followed by Adam according to Genesis.

Romans 5:12 states: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

And in 5:17: For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

No mention of Eve's sin anywhere, it only talk's about ONE man's sin. This leads me to conclude that if Adam had not followed suit and sinned along with his wife that God would have either a) disregarded her sin since it has been disregarded throughout history. or b) divinely removed Eve and gave Adam a new wife while thinking nothing of it.

[–]greym84 0 points1 point ago*

There's a lot of theological debate as to what extent of Jesus' death and method of death was necessary and part of the atonement. The consequences of sin is death (Rom 8:1). I think there's a dual meaning here. One one hand, it means literal death. On the other hand, I think it means death as in being set apart from God. That is to say that Adam, as man who sinned and therefore set himself apart from God, deserved punishment. In essence even, being set apart from God is punishment in itself. Would the atonement count with only 38 instead of 39 lashes? To me, every last lash may or may not be necessary (though Is. 53 seems to indicate it), but I think the true point of atonement came when Jesus cried out to God "Why have you forsaken me" and in his moment of death declared "It is finished" (John 19). Like I said, the Jews believed God's earthly presence dwelled in the holy of holies, a deeply separated room in the temple blocked by a thick curtain. When Jesus said it as finished, that curtain was literally torn (Mark 15).

Jesus' death was called for by Jewish leaders because they believed him to be a heretic. They very well may have dealt with his death according to Hebraic law, but by Hebraic law they couldn't execute him due to Sabbath restrictions (we're talking about a group of people who limited how many steps they took during the Sabbath). Let's also not forget that the man on the cross next to Jesus was a thief, so if Adam's sin was thievery, then Jesus' death wasn't entirely inappropriate.

As to the cross, the sin of the world was by the taking from a tree, so it's only fitting that the savior should die on it.

I don't actually think Adam's sin was thievery. If you look at the temptation of Jesus (Luke 4) you'll find that root of Satan's temptations are power and pride. Yet, everything he offers Jesus, Jesus already has in a sense. I think the same could be said for Adam, except Adam failed.

The female thing can be a conundrum. I see what you mean by OT and Timothy passages. My belief is that they were counter-cultural, but also just breaking the ice. Kings appointed by God were polygamist, which doesn't quite fit with Jewish or Christian teaching, yet Scripture seems to be easing believers into right living (divorce, adultery, etc.). I think it's the same for women.

On Adam as opposed to Eve. I think Adam is often used in the generic. The first humans did something wrong, and Jesus succeeded where they failed. The creation story in Genesis communicates this in a narrative about the first two humans. In a patriarchal society, where the man was the head and therefore responsible for his household, it only makes sense, as a communicative necessity, to speak in terms of Adam. Eve is implied.

edit: Also bear in mind that Adam's sin brought the curse of sin on all mankind, therefore Jesus' as the perfect substitutionary atoning sacrifice bore the sin of the whole world. Almost makes ya wonder if it was enough...

[–]agnostics_make_sense 1 point2 points ago*

Your comment just reminded me of something somewhat unrelated but relevant to theology.

You mentioned that many of the Kings were polygamist and it triggered it. You also mentioned that it was clearly against what God had set forth in the scriptures, and it is. -Duet 17:17 David is a good example of this and more. Aside from polygamy, David also committed adultery and murder. If anyone besides the King had done these he would have been put to death. David however was still written as being highly regarded and interestingly enough, despite this 1 Kings 11:6 still mentions that David followed the Lord completely. But since this was prior to Jesus sacrifice there was no means for him to be forgiven of such devastating sins.

I guess what we can conclude here is that to god, a King or religious leader receives special treatment. That we are not equal in god's eyes. Well, that wouldn't be the correct conclusion either. If you look at the story of Jonah and the story of Moses, both were severely punished for their sins. (Jonah for running away and having the wrong attitude, Moses for forgetting to give god credit for a watery rock) Why the variation between these prophets and the Kings? If god is all powerful and perfectly Just it should not make a difference.

Also about polygamy, no where does the bible condemn it. The scripture in Duet 17 was made specifically concerning Kings, of which none followed it, and were not punished. Titus 1:6 mentioned an "elder" must be "the husband of but one wife," and Timothy 3:12 regurgitates it but changes the wording to "deacon." However it does not say it is a sin to practice polygamy. It merely implies that a church leader should not practice it.

Was all this to appease the current generation and customs of men? That would be strange, for is not all scripture "inspired by god?" [2 Tim 3:16]. Clearly, either the bible is referring to things that apply to our day as well - or god just wasn't smart enough to inspire writings that would be future-proof.

--Jumping back to Eve--
I don't think it should be an Adam vs. Eve argument. Rather, it should be an Adam AND Eve argument. I'm a male and far from feminist, but I do not think myself any more privileged than another person simply because of gender. And I do not believe than an all-just god would think so either. How could god, as an all-loving, all-powerful, all-Just creator, make two beings of equal sentience and then proclaim one less valuable. It would be neither just nor loving, there is no logic in that. If we want to be technical, a woman would be more valuable as it requires more of them to perpetuate the species. One man is capable of impregnating thousands of women at a time (as shown by Ghengis Khan), so from a thermodynamic viewpoint additional men are quite worthless. If god's command was to "fill the earth and subdue it" would he not place a higher, or at least equal value on women from the very beginning? This was not the case according to the scriptures, which are supposedly inspired.

--Regarding the cross--
Yes, it was a tree. However long before Jesus such a cross was used in Sun worship of the Babylonian god "Shamash," and the Egyptian goddess "Sekhmet." Crucifixion itself originated with the Babylonians or Persians as a sacrifice to the sun god, and it was spread about by Alexander the Great. It's speculated he picked up cultural traditions from lands that he conquered. Another interesting thing is that the scriptures don't mention he was nailed to the cross, infact from what archaeological evidence we've found - nailing through the hands and feet was not practiced by the Romans. Yet John 20:25-27 was all about the nails in the hands (and side piercing). And even if he was nailed, in order to support the weight of his body the nails would need to be put through the wrist rather than the hands. Generally a person crucified would not die from the crucifixion because they were only tied up. It wasn't until the legs were broken that the loss of support would cause asphyxiation. Jesus was killed by the spear piercing him, and that is why there was no need to break his legs -unlike the two thieves near him who had not been pierced by a spear. Had the nearby thieves been pierced through the wrists they also would have been dead. So the whole "nailed through the hands" in John doesn't add up either way you look at it.

[–]greym84 1 point2 points ago

First, of all, every little argument leads to another caveat. That is the nature of philosophy and science, that the answer to every question leads to another series of questions and henceforth. I fear that in the end the root of what we discuss is in the Problem of Evil, a rather tedious topic. I can address it, and have, but I fear I can't do so quite as adequately as others, so might I recommend Timothy Keller's book Reason for God as a starting point. It's not the be-all-end-all, but a good place to begin.

Higher ups and favoritism – Sexual sin is a prevalent problem among Old Testament characters. Part of the argument for the authenticity of those stories is that the characters are flawed, something religious forefathers seldom are. David, Sampson, Abraham, you name it. Seriously, it's like the Joseph is the only guy who didn't give into sexual sin. I hypothesize, and like I said, I can't historically back it up one way or another, that in spite of the Law on this one, God was rather lenient. It was kind of like going over the speed-limit. My theory isn’t without biblical evidence.

In Romans 4, Paul says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. It’s no coincidence. The Book of Romans was Paul responding to the church in Rome. Rome was the epicenter of Jewish and non-Jewish Christianity, so naturally there was a bit of a clash. But Rome was in itself an epicenter and Paul saw that if he could really explain his theology to this group, that it would likely have the most widespread impact.

Paul talks about how God has been righteous, that is, though Israel or Adam could not be righteous, God was and in being righteous was able to keep his promise to Abraham and also be the perfect sacrifice in Jesus. Paul is saying that because Abraham believed that in some strange way God was going to uphold his end of the bargain no matter what, and because of that faith Abraham is retroactively saved by Jesus.

Notice that Jesus is primarily concerned with the heart. And who was David? A man after God’s own heart. Yes, in spite of his rather awful deeds regarding Bathsheba, his is still considered this. Why? Because his ultimate faith was centered around giving himself and everything he was to God. David, by the way, did suffer (2 Sam 11-4).

Kings were ultimately stewards of God’s people. Unfortunately, they often didn’t hold themselves accountable to the Laws of common people, nor did they subject themselves to clerical authority or accountibility. There were many bad kings and God often punished all of Israel for their actions, as Israel often followed the king’s wickedness. Often times, the king’s own actions were his undoing.

I believe the scripture is inspired by God. It often causes some cognitive dissonance (I know most Christians won’t admit this). There is a strong difference in something simply being allowed and something being commanded. For instance, just because the Bible gives distinct instructions on the treatment of slaves isn’t necessarily an affirmation of slavery.

I agree with you about Eve, actually. Sorry I wasn’t more clear in my original reply. I don’t really think of Adam and Eve in the traditional sense. I think Adam often refers to the first of mankind. And just like when we say mankind we mean women as well, in no particular hierarchy, we can refer to Adam as the first of mankind and include Eve with that. Eve was just as responsible. Once again, I think the terminology of simply just saying Adam emerges from having been written for a patriarchal society. I don’t think it had any bearing on equality between Adam and Eve as historical figures (if they even were literal historical figures).

The relationship between a married man and women in the Bible is often compared to Christ and the church. There are many implications of it, but part of it is that both function in different ways as being the way in which people become a part of God’s family.

In modern society, we have started to view husband-wife relationships as egalitarian. I’m perfectly fine with the equality of women but I have a question just as to what equality looks like. If a couple is dancing, one has to lead. If not, toes get stepped on, other dancers get run into, and it ends up looking rather messy. Someone must lead, but that doesn’t make the leader hierarchically superior, just simply responsible one part of a shared task. Adam’s leadership over Eve would not have been some hierarchical oppression. Patriarchy emerged out of the abuse of what was supposed to be a purely functional responsibility. I’m not saying that women can’t or shouldn’t lead men, but I am challenging modern understandings of leadership and I am suggesting that someone’s gotta do it.

The cross. I’m honestly not sure if the idea of the idea of the cross as an execution method being a sacrifice to the son god resonated all the up to the first century Roman Empire. You would think someone like Celsus would jump all over that. But let’s assume it did. What did I say was one of the poetic meanings of Genesis? To say in contrast to the Babylonian and other pagan myths that Yahweh was good and his creation was good. It only adds power to the crucifixion. You can try and beat the one true God by giving him up to the sun god, but it is by that very method that he will overcome all other gods, death, evil, and sin. That’s the message of the cross in the first place. The powers of darkness thought they had finally won, little did they know what God was really up to, that he loved enough to make the sacrifice he did.

As to being tied. I would be really curious to see any peer reviewed data on this. From the article, it seems like nails were not out of the question and may have been used sporadically.

I’ve never found any dissonance with the nuance of wrist vs. hands. I’ve seen Passion Plays and art work that depicts the wrists and it never felt like it was misinterpreting. I don’t know the original Greek well enough to know how specific it was either. I could see a guy having a pierced wrist holding up his hands (which he would have to do to display his wrists) and saying “Look at my hands” when he indeed might have mean the wrist. It just seems like a generalization to me.

Many OT prophecies included hints that Jesus would be pierced in his hands (or wrists, if you wish) and feet. On one hand, that might compelling evidence that he was pierced. On the other, if he wasn’t pierced but the author wanted to exaggerate his claim to Messiahship, then I suppose it might be good reason to exaggerate it. The trouble I have there is that first century witnesses and later Christians never seemed to have a problem with this. Once again, I would think someone like Celsus or Trajan would bring this up.

If Jesus wasn’t nailed, of course, it’s still no wonder that he died the day he was actually crucified. He seemed to have been made to endure a lot more than the criminals on either side: the reopening of his wounds, crown of thorns, dehydration (when offered drink he refused).

I know I didn’t address all your questions or go as in depth as you might like. I’m a grad student, so my time is limited accordingly. I had typed this out once and accidentally lost it when I hit the wrong button. Such is life. I’ll have to let you have the last word, as I’m all out of time. Fascinating discussion though, and I really appreciate it.

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

Don't know. I'm thinking of experimenting this on weak/moderate christians. Some might actually value the ethical idea of saving someone from torture and execution more the prophecy and theology.

[–]greym84 1 point2 points ago

I would question the ethics of that. With theological structure the argument is undone. You would know the argument to be invalid, yet use it because it just might work on someone weak-minded.

Might I suggest staying with the oldie but goodies. They still challenge me. If God could stop Adam and Eve from taking the fruit, why didn't he? Well, they will say freewill. Non-sense. If you see your child about to do something so catastrophic it will ruin human history, screw freewill you intervene. Heck, why could God just show up about the time the snake was talking and give Eve the counter-argument?

How about the sprinkles one? You would think if there was going to be bad in the world, God would at least evenly distribute it like you do sprinkles on a cupcake. Yet, it's as if God bunched up the sprinkles in a few very specific places in world. He sure doesn't seem to like brown people.

Just read through some OT law. Christians believe the Law was given to the Israelites for several reasons. Partly so they would recognize the severity and price for sin, partly because they were his people and he had called them to be holy, etc. The treatment of women is anything but "holy."

Then there's the good ol' problem of evil. How can God be omniscient, benevolent, and omnipotent at the same time.

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

Of course, I use those when I decide to roll my sleeves up...

[–]sje46 0 points1 point ago

Well if Jesus is supposedly God and did it to save humanity from eternal torment from hell...why wouldn't they? I mean, Jesus is basically superman trying to do something really nice for us. He doesn't want people to save him.

You should ask this question to /r/DebateReligion.

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

This might be a better question for weaker christians.

[–]Jeezafobic 1 point2 points ago

As one of the non-superstitious I'd show up at the manger in Bethlehem on Dec 25 with a box of gold, frankincense and mhyrr and smash in his little head. Then set the dial for LRon and then the Profit Mo.

[–]dumnezero 7 points8 points ago

I see what you mean, but the other proposal is more interesting because it does not involve assassination

[–]432 3 points4 points ago

Why would you want to kill Jesus? (Implying he was real) Even as an Atheist I feel this is disturbing.

[–]mustardjones 2 points3 points ago

wow. talking about murdering a baby. cool? umm....

[–]brodyth 0 points1 point ago

Well, how else you gonna cook it? Their screams are to annoying

[–]mustardjones 0 points1 point ago

*too

Haha. But, yeah. I didn't think about it that way I guess.

[–]XaVierDK 6 points7 points ago

And in movie-form - Mad TV

*Edited with better quality; sorry for subs.

[–]BewareOfTheTripe 7 points8 points ago

If it weren't for Jesus people would still have found some other bullshit to believe in.

I'm actually thankful for Jesus. He was a liberal hippie. It makes it easy to highlight the hypocrisy of hate filled religious conservatives.

[–]verygoodname 5 points6 points ago

Cartoons like this always perplex me -- If it hadn't been Jesus, it would have been somebody else. It's not like Jesus had a monopoly on "crazy endtimes street corner prophet" back in the day.

People today could all be worshiping the past's equivalent of "Joe the Plumber" ... O wait .... "Jesus the Carpenter."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

A terminator movie related question - is it ever addressed why the terminator is sent back to the particular "dates" in the movie - i.e. are the dates chosen in T1 and T2 to give the terminator(s) some tactical advantage, or is it almost random when he arrives, because the technology isn't precise?

/probably too nerdy for R/atheism

[–]cumfarts 3 points4 points ago

It's been a long time, but if I remember right, they can't nail the precise date so they just aim for somewhere in the ballpark

[–]ctrl_all_del 1 point2 points ago

yes, this is better explained in the first movie when kyle reese doesn't know the exact date.

[–]resme1 1 point2 points ago

I have finally been on Reddit long enough to notice a repost. Yay!

[–]iamaiamscat 2 points3 points ago

You've been on here for about 6 hours then?

[–]resme1 0 points1 point ago

I didn't notice that one. This is a repost from AGES ago.

[–]TheRoadWest 1 point2 points ago

Go back and prevent the Edict of Milan... Get Christianity out of government. That was the worst thing to happen to Christianity, religion should not be associated with government.

[–]brungo 1 point2 points ago

dat ass.

[–]Worst_Circlejerk 1 point2 points ago

r/atheism has been a circle jerk of reposts all week. "I'll be back" is the most relevant name for this post. I will see it next week.

[–]mildly_inappropriate 0 points1 point ago

Say what you want about Christianity, but I don't see Christians blowing themselves up or sending death threats every time a Christian joke is made.

That being said, I'm an agnostic and I find them all to be silly if argued. Having said THAT, I also let people believe what they want to believe. Doesn't affect me, why the fuck should I care?

[–]andyofthedead138 0 points1 point ago

I imagine Arnie blowing holes in everyone, not just Romans. Mary on her knees thanking him, when BOOM! Headshot.

[–]rumrunners 0 points1 point ago

down vote for repost

[–]wkrausmann 0 points1 point ago

How can a terminator go back in time to stop Christ's crucifixion when Christ never existed in the first place?

[–]Turbo_Coffee 0 points1 point ago

few things wrong with this picture. According to Terminator World Physics, No artificial material can travel trough time, That is why terminator is covered in a bio organic skin thus the shot gun, the jacket and the sun glasses are extremely wrong!! Time Travel physics fail!!!

[–]Warkitz 0 points1 point ago

So are we making this movie? I would pay to see it. But who would we get to play Jesus?

[–]imwithoblivious 0 points1 point ago

The look on Jesus's face is in correlation to the placement of the Terminator's pinky.

[–]sje46 0 points1 point ago

So why are the Romans brown and Jesus white? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The Romans were olive-skinned and Jesus likely looked like this.

[–]Mackeja 0 points1 point ago

The only sad part bout this is that our society would instead probably be declaring another one of the endless progression of Jewish Messiahs to be God

[–]RatbikeJim 0 points1 point ago

SHIT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

[–]adelato 0 points1 point ago

This is almost identical to Mad TV's Terminator Parody

[–]Nosa1138 0 points1 point ago

Anyone else read this in an Austrian accent?

[–]Pugovitz 0 points1 point ago

[–]edtasty 0 points1 point ago

Why not post the SNL clip?

[–]Pharose 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry but I don't think it's completely fair to blame Jesus for the Christian Church's bullshit. He was a reformist who had very strong disagreements with the established Church/Temple/Synagogue of his time, and his proposed reformations were very reasonable. Perhaps his only fault was that he was too self-righteous, but that self-righteousness is the main reason he was executed and made into a permanent historical figure.

The bullshit of Christianity didn't truly start until it was embraced by Rome and integrated into their power structure. The Catholic Church created a huge divide between the Western Churches and the Eastern Churches, and to this day the smaller Christian Churches of the Middle East and beyond remain more consistent with the self-sacrifice of Jesus' message.

[–]InsaneCactus 0 points1 point ago

Damn Jesus has a nice bubble-butt. Mmmmm. What? Hm?

[–]EmergencyExit85 0 points1 point ago

This needs to be made. Hahaha

[–]2muffins 0 points1 point ago

And the angel of death came down and stuck down with great vengeance those who had crucified the lord. The angel of death carried Jesus into the heavens. After three days, he returned to them unharmed.

[–]dhicks3 -1 points0 points ago

Both Jesus and the Terminator claimed "I'll be back". Only one of them made good on the threat. And how!

[–]puremutt -1 points0 points ago

If Terminator stopped Abraham instead that would save us from so much more bullshit.