Why I Am Not A Christian

[JoLouis]

"The creator of the universe and time itself is fulfilling what he said he would according to His Word."

He said this where? And to whom? Don't say the bible, cuz I'll burst out laughing.

 

[Anguille]

There was nothing that "lead" to the discussion of masochistic overtones. It was a straight up unsupported charge by Anguish. Some tried to argue his refusal to drink wine somehow equates to masochism but accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism. To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.

Instead of bluster and namecalling why not address the reasons why some people see a theme of masochism in the story of Christ's death and are repulsed by the veneration of an instrument of torture. You do the Christian faith no favors by denying people's right to their own opinion based on their own experiences. The Bible, like any novel, is open to interpretation. And I think you know very well that the Bible is one of the most widely interpreted books there is.

You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion. Get off your soapbox and get real.

 

[CurveLight]

Are these scripture passages supposed to be on-point? How's about you reply using words you've written, nraforlife?

accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism. To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.

False. The two have nothing to do with one another. One can accept responsibility and be masochistic. One can reject responsibility and be masochistic. Altering a ridiculous man-made "consequence" does not alter responsibility. If he had been lashed 10 more or 10 fewer times, would the religion in any way be changed? No, the end result is the same.

Now call me dishonest. I want to feel you chastise me as I take responsibility for my naughty naughty dishonesty.

I don't think you're being dishonest. It's more of a lack of comprehension. As you've acknowledged, he did not want to go through the torture but he accepted responsibility for his actions. Nothing more. Nothing less. You're trying to claim he chose a masochistic route for not taking drugs.....but you fail to understand that does not equate to masochism on any level. If he was masochistic he would not have cried and begged for a way to avoid the torture.

 

[Anguille]

accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism. To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.

False. The two have nothing to do with one another. One can accept responsibility and be masochistic. One can reject responsibility and be masochistic. Altering a ridiculous man-made "consequence" does not alter responsibility. If he had been lashed 10 more or 10 fewer times, would the religion in any way be changed? No, the end result is the same.

Now call me dishonest. I want to feel you chastise me as I take responsibility for my naughty naughty dishonesty.

lol!

 

[nraforlife]

Are these scripture passages supposed to be on-point? How's about you reply using words you've written, nraforlife?

because arguing with you is a waste of time. You were given the answer BUT..... you don't want to hear. Fine the consequences are on your head.

 

[CurveLight]

You're so damn dishonest I don't give a fuck what you think. You're the kind of sick fuck that would say rape is a compliment because the rapist was so attracted to his victim he risked his freedom for sex. You know you are being dishonest you just don't care so long as you can whine.

Exactly who here is being dishonest?

You fucking trolling bitch. What the hell was so ambiguous when I said I don't give a fuck what you think? I wasn't joking.

There was nothing that "lead" to the discussion of masochistic overtones. It was a straight up unsupported charge by Anguish. Some tried to argue his refusal to drink wine somehow equates to masochism but accepting responsibility for one's actions is never masochism. To alter the consequences is to alter accepting responsibility.

Instead of bluster and namecalling why not address the reasons why some people see a theme of masochism in the story of Christ's death and are repulsed by the veneration of an instrument of torture. You do the Christian faith no favors by denying people's right to their own opinion based on their own experiences. The Bible, like any novel, is open to interpretation. And I think you know very well that the Bible is one of the most widely interpreted books there is.

You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion. Get off your soapbox and get real.

You fucking trolling bitch. What the hell was so ambiguous when I said I don't give a fuck what you think? I wasn't joking

 

[Madeline]

So, in essence what I get from some of the christians on this thread is: fuck off and die. And that just leads me back to my earlier question: why are the christians (some) so angry at the non-christians?

I know this will sound odd, but at times you guys seem a bit envious to me.

 

[CurveLight]

You're so damn dishonest I don't give a fuck what you think. You're the kind of sick fuck that would say rape is a compliment because the rapist was so attracted to his victim he risked his freedom for sex. You know you are being dishonest you just don't care so long as you can whine.

Exactly who here is being dishonest?

You fucking trolling bitch. What the hell was so ambiguous when I said I don't give a fuck what you think? I wasn't joking.

So, in essence what I get from some of the christians on this thread is: fuck off and die. And that just leads me back to my earlier question: why are the christians (some) so angry at the non-christians?

I know this will sound odd, but at times you guys seem a bit envious to me.

I'm not saying fuck off and die. I'm saying if you want to debate then do it honestly. The Anguish bullshit masochistic charge is a great example. You know she has never addressed the fact Jesus begged and wept to avoid the suffering of the crucifixion and when I call her out on that you use it to claim I'm angry.

All you are doing is repeating your op soapbox broadbrushing bullshit. Not all Christians do many of the things you claim in the OP but instead of being honest you use the broadbrush to try and justify your anger.

Go back and re-read your op. You start off fairly objective and provide valid criticisms but as it progresses your anger shines through more and more. I hate it you (and anyone) has had to suffer under the hands of self righteous sick clergy but your experiences to not grant a license to bash everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion.

I think this is the real issue here. The original claim of masochistic overtones can be perceived as having a negative connotation. While a completely valid interpretation of the events and the religion's emphatic rejoicing of those events, he only perceives the claim as somehow bashing the entire religion. That's not the case, but he feels the need to get all cute and huffy anyway, as if he is somehow defending his honor, despite the facts actually supporting your claim.

As you've acknowledged, he did not want to go through the torture but he accepted responsibility for his actions.

As I've acknowledged and you've repeatedly ignored, "pain" and "responsibility" are not congruent. Nor have you showed how or why they are linked in any way. Masochism deals with knowingly pain and bringing pain upon oneself, actively or passively. He knew his actions were severely upsetting people, which is actively bringing pain upon himself. He refused anesthetic, which is passively bringing pain upon himself. And while you can continue to argue the case of "accepting responsibility" all you want, it still has nothing to do with pain.

If he was masochistic he would not have cried and begged for a way to avoid the torture.

You still demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the word masochism. Saying "no, stop!" is part of it. Look up the term "safeword" if you need more convincing. Why do you think so many Christians believe he willingly did this? Oh I almost forgot: you pick and choose which parts you like to believe.

So again, masochistic overtones have nothing to do with taking responsibility. Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?

 

[CurveLight]

You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion.

I think this is the real issue here. The original claim of masochistic overtones can be perceived as having a negative connotation. While a completely valid interpretation of the events and the religion's emphatic rejoicing of those events, he only perceives the claim as somehow bashing the entire religion. That's not the case, but he feels the need to get all cute and huffy anyway, as if he is somehow defending his honor, despite the facts actually supporting your claim.

As you've acknowledged, he did not want to go through the torture but he accepted responsibility for his actions.

As I've acknowledged and you've repeatedly ignored, "pain" and "responsibility" are not congruent. Nor have you showed how or why they are linked in any way. Masochism deals with knowingly pain and bringing pain upon oneself, actively or passively. He knew his actions were severely upsetting people, which is actively bringing pain upon himself. He refused anesthetic, which is passively bringing pain upon himself. And while you can continue to argue the case of "accepting responsibility" all you want, it still has nothing to do with pain.

If he was masochistic he would not have cried and begged for a way to avoid the torture.

You still demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the word masochism. Saying "no, stop!" is part of it. Look up the term "safeword" if you need more convincing. Why do you think so many Christians believe he willingly did this? Oh I almost forgot: you pick and choose which parts you like to believe.

So again, masochistic overtones have nothing to do with taking responsibility. Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?

Not all masochistic sessions involve saying "stop" you dumbfuck. The safe word can be used in myriad scenarios but thanks for demonstrating you really don't know what you are talking about.

By your logic everyone who marched for Civil Rights with Dr King were masochists because they knew marching would bring severe consequences. So basically in your view anyone who stands up against oppressive forces with non-violence means they are also masochistic. That is your lack of comprehension.

Many Christian denominations have evolved into different levels of masochism but it has nothing to do with what Jesus actually did. It has to do with exploiting human guilt to make people feel bad about about being human. That is not the message Jesus brought.

How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?

 

[THE LIGHT]

The Light, do you seriously revise scientific facts with religious dogma? Why?

Could you please point out what scientific facts that I have revised?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no? I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.

Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse? Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?

Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality. They have nothing to do with one another. So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?

 

[CurveLight]

I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no? I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.

Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse? Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?

Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality. They have nothing to do with one another. So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?

You really are fucking ignorant. You think the worst case scenario for the majority of Civil Rights' protesters was time in a local jail? Since you obviously don't know US history very well I'm not surprised you don't know basics of 1st century Judea.

I didn't ignore any question you dishonest fuckwad. It is you that ignored the questions. Not to mention the fact what you are asking is known as a loaded question. Masochistics willingly subject themselves to pain for the explicit purpose of finding pleasure in that pain. As you've already admitted, Jesus begged for a way to avoid the pain of the Crucifixion. You are trying to equate masochism with anyone who commits an act that actively or passively brings pain. That means all athletes are masochists. Anyone who willingly goes to a dentist is a masochist. Anyone who exercises in a gym is a masochist. You stoopid fuck. You don't get to re-define masochism to fit your agenda.

Jesus knew there would be consequences for his activism just like most activists who marched in the 60's knew there would be consequences. Like them, Jesus did not actively or passively bring pain. The harm they suffered falls squarely in the hands of those who inflicted the pain.

You're using logic that is exactly the same logic sick fucks use to blame rape victims. Think about it einstein.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So, avoided answering the simple non-loaded question yet again I see.

You really are fucking ignorant. You think the worst case scenario for the majority of Civil Rights' protesters was time in a local jail? Since you obviously don't know US history very well I'm not surprised you don't know basics of 1st century Judea.

Really now? Tell me then: of the >250,000 people who marched on Washington for civil rights with King, what percentage of them had anything worse than local jail time befall them? Give me a number here.

Why do you continue to equate a tortured prolonged death with civil rights peace marches in the 60s? Are you not aware of the drastically different laws and common practices between the times? Even if you go back several decades to when public killings were taking place, they STILL weren't as bad as crucifixion. But we're talking about King's march on Washington, which was widely successful, had little risk, and produced great benefits. Ridiculous. Hey maybe next you'll whip out Godwin's law and compare the crucifixion to the holocaust or some other unrelated unequal historical event.

I didn't ignore any question you dishonest fuckwad.

Oh? What is your answer then? Yes or no?

Not to mention the fact what you are asking is known as a loaded question.

What part is loaded? He either did or did not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively. It's a pretty simple question with two simple possibilities.

You are trying to equate masochism with anyone who commits an act that actively or passively brings pain. That means all athletes are masochists.

This is mass masochism masquerading as sport
Masochistic and Proud
USATODAY.com - Go hard fitness buffs push extreme even further
Mountain Masochist Trail Run - 50 miler, Trial Running, Extreme Ultramarathon, Ultra Running
The Role of Consent in Sado-masochistic Practices - Journal Article
Simon Hattenstone: City masochists get their kicks from the joy of six | Sport | The Guardian

It's almost like you set yourself up for fail. If I had an inclination that this was anything short of pure stupidity, I'd claim you had a little masochism in you too.

Let's face it: you're clueless on this topic. It's clear to me you came into the discussion with the idea that the word only referred to a sexual act. You even cherry picked a dictionary definition of that when someone said otherwise. Since being proven wrong from the start, you've been back-pedaling, warping the meaning, splitting, making incongruous analogies, and generally digging yourself into a deeper fail.

I had to come in, give secondary dictionary definitions that showed the full meaning, and have continued explaining the meaning of the word to you ever since then. Now, it seems you have this idea that masochism is a specific act, or refers to any pain regardless of reason or outcome. This too, is a completely made up idea of yours.

Your idea of its meaning has been shot down in this thread more times than I can count now. Why not just cut your losses and assume you still don't actually understand what it means?

I look forward to you avoiding the simple question yet again.

 

[CurveLight]

I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no? I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.

Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse? Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?

Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality. They have nothing to do with one another. So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?

So, avoided answering the simple non-loaded question yet again I see.

You really are fucking ignorant. You think the worst case scenario for the majority of Civil Rights' protesters was time in a local jail? Since you obviously don't know US history very well I'm not surprised you don't know basics of 1st century Judea.

Really now? Tell me then: of the >250,000 people who marched on Washington for civil rights with King, what percentage of them had anything worse than local jail time befall them? Give me a number here.

Why do you continue to equate a tortured prolonged death with civil rights peace marches in the 60s? Are you not aware of the drastically different laws and common practices between the times? Even if you go back several decades to when public killings were taking place, they STILL weren't as bad as crucifixion. But we're talking about King's march on Washington, which was widely successful, had little risk, and produced great benefits. Ridiculous. Hey maybe next you'll whip out Godwin's law and compare the crucifixion to the holocaust or some other unrelated unequal historical event.

I didn't ignore any question you dishonest fuckwad.

Oh? What is your answer then? Yes or no?

Not to mention the fact what you are asking is known as a loaded question.

What part is loaded? He either did or did not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively. It's a pretty simple question with two simple possibilities.

You are trying to equate masochism with anyone who commits an act that actively or passively brings pain. That means all athletes are masochists.

This is mass masochism masquerading as sport
Masochistic and Proud
USATODAY.com - Go hard fitness buffs push extreme even further
Mountain Masochist Trail Run - 50 miler, Trial Running, Extreme Ultramarathon, Ultra Running
The Role of Consent in Sado-masochistic Practices - Journal Article
Simon Hattenstone: City masochists get their kicks from the joy of six | Sport | The Guardian

It's almost like you set yourself up for fail. If I had an inclination that this was anything short of pure stupidity, I'd claim you had a little masochism in you too.

Let's face it: you're clueless on this topic. It's clear to me you came into the discussion with the idea that the word only referred to a sexual act. You even cherry picked a dictionary definition of that when someone said otherwise. Since being proven wrong from the start, you've been back-pedaling, warping the meaning, splitting, making incongruous analogies, and generally digging yourself into a deeper fail.

I had to come in, give secondary dictionary definitions that showed the full meaning, and have continued explaining the meaning of the word to you ever since then. Now, it seems you have this idea that masochism is a specific act, or refers to any pain regardless of reason or outcome. This too, is a completely made up idea of yours.

Your idea of its meaning has been shot down in this thread more times than I can count now. Why not just cut your losses and assume you still don't actually understand what it means?

I look forward to you avoiding the simple question yet again.

Lol.......you're a fucking dumbass. You wish to pat yourself on the back based on your own shit instead of addressing the facts then you accuse me of not knowing the definition of masochism when I was the first onr to post the definition.

Now I know you'll whine like a little bitch if I don't spell out your dishonesty.....shit.....we both know you'll whine even if I don't but at least you can't say you were never taught.

I referred to Civil Rights marchers who in general were subjected to physical beatings and other forms of physical violence so you respond by pointing to a single fucking march. Instead of acknowledging marchers were regularly subjected to violence. You did that because I explained your piss poor logic that anyone who fights oppression with non violence somehow means they are masochistic. I answered your question so will you keep lying? Probably. You're pure bitch.

 

[CurveLight]

You act like you think you are some sort of caped crusader defending Christians. You are the one who is a bigot. You assume everyone who has a problem accepting all tenants of a religion must hate all those who follow that religion.

I think this is the real issue here. The original claim of masochistic overtones can be perceived as having a negative connotation. While a completely valid interpretation of the events and the religion's emphatic rejoicing of those events, he only perceives the claim as somehow bashing the entire religion. That's not the case, but he feels the need to get all cute and huffy anyway, as if he is somehow defending his honor, despite the facts actually supporting your claim.

As I've acknowledged and you've repeatedly ignored, "pain" and "responsibility" are not congruent. Nor have you showed how or why they are linked in any way. Masochism deals with knowingly pain and bringing pain upon oneself, actively or passively. He knew his actions were severely upsetting people, which is actively bringing pain upon himself. He refused anesthetic, which is passively bringing pain upon himself. And while you can continue to argue the case of "accepting responsibility" all you want, it still has nothing to do with pain.

If he was masochistic he would not have cried and begged for a way to avoid the torture.

You still demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the word masochism. Saying "no, stop!" is part of it. Look up the term "safeword" if you need more convincing. Why do you think so many Christians believe he willingly did this? Oh I almost forgot: you pick and choose which parts you like to believe.

So again, masochistic overtones have nothing to do with taking responsibility. Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no?

Not all masochistic sessions involve saying "stop" you dumbfuck. The safe word can be used in myriad scenarios but thanks for demonstrating you really don't know what you are talking about.

By your logic everyone who marched for Civil Rights with Dr King were masochists because they knew marching would bring severe consequences. So basically in your view anyone who stands up against oppressive forces with non-violence means they are also masochistic. That is your lack of comprehension.

Many Christian denominations have evolved into different levels of masochism but it has nothing to do with what Jesus actually did. It has to do with exploiting human guilt to make people feel bad about about being human. That is not the message Jesus brought.

How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?

Hey NOTSmarterthanhick.....you keep ignoring this question:

How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?

I anticipate you trying to hide behind the claim I didn't answer your question so I will point out again that your question is bullshit and doesn't apply because you are blaming the victim. If you continue to be stubborn then the answer is "no." Why? Because people who fight against oppression are not "actively or passively" bring on physical torture you dumbfuck. They are fight for rights and if the oppressors try and use violence to shut them up that doesn't mean the people fighting are "masochists" you dumb bitch.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

you keep ignoring this question:

How do you reconcile Anguish's claim that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture with your own claim he went unwillingly?

Differing times. You said at one point he prayed to not be arrested. Putting aside the question of why Jesus would need to pray for anything, he later on, also known as a different point in time, after being arrested, knowingly turned down anesthetic, thus providing the masochistic overtones originally mentioned.

So let's overview in small words for you: the idea of him initially avoiding the arrest and thus having nothing to do with pain has nothing to do with masochistic overtones. The idea of refusing anesthetic and knowingly experiencing the full amount of pain is directly associated with masochistic overtones by definition. Perhaps it's the word "overtone" that is throwing you off too?

Let's use your self-failing sports example. In Rocky 7, before he fights The Juggernaut, he says he can't go on because he feels Juggernaut is bigger and better than him. Then Adrienne gives him a pep talk and says he has to do it to save the world from evil mutants with superhuman abilities, and he mans-up and fights anyway, knowing full well he's going to win but barely be breathing at the end. Now, are there masochistic overtones when he is feeling down and wants to avoid the fight? Nope. What about when he's in the ring getting the snot beat out of him? Well, yeah.

Again what you are showing is called splitting: assuming masochism is inherent to the person instead of the situation, whereby someone has to ALWAYS or NEVER exhibit such tendencies. Once again: FALSE.

So now that I've answered your question, again, will you answer mine?

If you continue to be stubborn then the answer is "no." Why? Because people who fight against oppression are not "actively or passively" bring on physical torture you dumbfuck. They are fight for rights and if the oppressors try and use violence to shut them up that doesn't mean the people fighting are "masochists" you dumb bitch.

You also used another horrible example in your previous post of going to the dentist. Are people who go to the dentists masochists? Well, no. The people who go to the dentist and refuse anesthetic while getting their teeth drilled because they want to feel it are exhibiting masochistic tendencies.

You're still missing this. Masochism has nothing to do with oppression, fighting for equality, or taking responsibility for ones actions. Nothing. 0% to do with those things. You continually go back to them as some warped sense of justification for willingly bringing pain onto himself, when the masochism only refers to the actual pain part.

So you really think Jesus in no way, actively or passively, despite turning away anesthetic, experienced pain he could have otherwise avoided? Your answer is "no"? Really? Wow. I mean it was clear to me you'd do anything to get out of admitting to a mistake. I mean you went this far while being wrong about the concept of masochism, but I didn't think you'd be dumb enough to blatantly contradict simple concepts and facts such as the pain and how it could have been avoided.

You just became the most entertaining person on this forum.

 

[Madeline]

The Light, do you seriously revise scientific facts with religious dogma? Why?

Could you please point out what scientific facts that I have revised?

What about your claim that scientists cannot explain what holds an atom together, but you (presumably your faith) can?

 

[CurveLight]

NOTsmarterthanhick, I didn't say people who go to the dentist are masochistic you dumb fuckwad. I said "by your logic" they are masochistic. So you just had a little strawman party and are too fucking dumb to realize it.

You also tried to weasel out of your contradiction with Anguish but I'm not surprised. That dishonest bitch claimed he "willingly embraced" the torture and we know from the fact he prayed and begged to avoid it proves that claim wrong. Then....lol....your stoopid ass actually asked why Jesus would pray at all? Rotfl! You"re way up to speed!

 

[Madeline]

I'm sorry, I couldn't help notice that you once again blatantly ignored the question: Did he or did he not actively or passively bring pain upon himself? Yes or no? I'll give you a hint as to why you won't answer a simple yes or no question: because you know the answer proves you wrong.

Do you really want to compare Jesus's crucifixion, a horrible tortured death, to marching for civil rights, where the worst case scenario for the large majority of supporters was a little time in the local jailhouse? Prolonged torture equals short imprisonment in your mind?

Once again you are linking a term dealing with pain to things like justice, responsibility, equality. They have nothing to do with one another. So once again: Did he or did he not knowingly bring pain upon himself either actively or passively? Yes or no?

You really are fucking ignorant. You think the worst case scenario for the majority of Civil Rights' protesters was time in a local jail? Since you obviously don't know US history very well I'm not surprised you don't know basics of 1st century Judea.

I didn't ignore any question you dishonest fuckwad. It is you that ignored the questions. Not to mention the fact what you are asking is known as a loaded question. Masochistics willingly subject themselves to pain for the explicit purpose of finding pleasure in that pain. As you've already admitted, Jesus begged for a way to avoid the pain of the Crucifixion. You are trying to equate masochism with anyone who commits an act that actively or passively brings pain. That means all athletes are masochists. Anyone who willingly goes to a dentist is a masochist. Anyone who exercises in a gym is a masochist. You stoopid fuck. You don't get to re-define masochism to fit your agenda.

Jesus knew there would be consequences for his activism just like most activists who marched in the 60's knew there would be consequences. Like them, Jesus did not actively or passively bring pain. The harm they suffered falls squarely in the hands of those who inflicted the pain.

You're using logic that is exactly the same logic sick fucks use to blame rape victims. Think about it einstein.

All this debate is predicated on a belief that someone named Jesus really lived and had a life resembling what is (somewhat contradictorially) described in the Bible. THEN we are supposed to "have faith" (read "suspend disbelief") and take things a step further and accept that Jesus was God. And from this confusing, contradictory, irrational jumping off point we are supposed to debate what "historical facts" the Bible contains and what they mean? I feel as if I'm listening to you to debate the hidden meaning of the "Tale of Rumpelstilskin" (which by the way makes more sense than the Bible).

PassSSSSsssssSSSSssssssss.