The mark of a failed philosophy is when the person who invented it cannot follow it.
If Jesus cannot live up to Christianity, what chance can the rest of us have?
Jesus didn’t forgive his enemies – He sent them to Hell. (Mark 16:16)
Jesus cursed his enemies – “Thou Fools!”(Matt. 23:17)
Jesus stole things – “untie them..and bring them to me” (Matt. 21:2-3)
Jesus destroyed his enemies – “execute them in front of me” (Luke 19:27)
Jesus didn’t love most of his neighbors – They are ‘Dogs’! (Matthew 15:26)
Jesus told people to judge others – “Remove your blessings”! (Matt 10:14)
Jesus was bigoted – “They are swine” (Matthew 7:6)
Jesus violently whipped people – attack at the temple (John 2:5)
Jesus didn’t want peace – “I do not bring peace.” (Matt 10:34)
Jesus lied to people – “He went in secret” (John 7:8-13)
Jesus prepared for war – “if you have money, buy a sword” (Luke 22:36-37)
Jesus supported the death penalty -“Drown him with a millstone” (Matt 18:6)
The term “Christ-like” is an illusion.
When someone is deeply compassionate we want to label this behavior as virtuous and beautiful. But our error is to falsely credit such qualities as “Christ-like.” Clearly, the term cannot be much of a virtue if one is referring to the behavior of Jesus.
There is no reason to think the character of Jesus is a good example for anyone. Christ-like would be best described as: obedience, fear and duty to tribe.
“If the men do not abide in me…they shall be gathered and burned” – JESUS (John 15:6)
Jesus is exactly like every other person who ever found Christian doctrine unworkable.
Atheist Max 
Pingback: JESUS FAILED AT BEING CHRIST-LIKE | Atheist Max
Dude, ever heard the term “proftext.” Your not gonna convince many Christians of anything by doing the #1 thing they are told not to do.
LikeLike
I think you mean “proof text.”
Yes. I’m familiar with the word. But perhaps you should admit you did not know Jesus advocated such things?
Remember, God is claimed to be of a higher standard than the rest of us. If his behavior is no better than us, he cannot be worthy of judging us.
LikeLike
I know all the versus you pulled, and the problem with this piece is anyone looking them up in full, knows the whole story, or is just familiar with hyperbole isn’t gonna have the issue with them you want them to have. That’s just as a “comment to the post as literature” kinda observation, like pointing out a bad paragraph or ommision. It’s like pointing out Abraham sacrificing Isaac to a Rabbi… he’s known the story his whole life, so it’s not gonna shock him. Some of these lines are pretty routine, they lack the “shock value” you’re looking for.
One could also point out the religion predates the scripture, so it informs it in a way that the author wouldn’t write against some things or scribes might edit it. These lines were all penned by one who believed the religion and knew the lines he said, so the two are already “compatible” at the time of writing. Pointing to their incompatibility now is just bad literary criticism technique.
Now, as a theologian Jesus has some known pause worthy lines but these aren’t them. But I’m not gonna spoon feed you them and why just so you can grow stronger in your set oppositional position.
LikeLike
So you are saying the text does not matter.
If that is the case – don’t tell me it matters when you want it to matter:
“Love thy neighbor”
“He is Risen”
“Forgive them they know not…”
I endorse your plan to obliterate the bible. Your job is to explain why anyone needs to bother with it at all.
LikeLike
Really, that’s not even a parry of my point. I’m saying they don’t mean what they think you mean.
I’m getting the familiar feeling now of tossing bread to the thing under the bridge…
LikeLike
You said, “anyone looking them up in full, knows the whole story”
YES. The “whole story” of Jesus is a sick and depraved story indeed.
Jesus failed to live up to the Commandments he preached about as well as the rules he made up from plagiarized texts.
Jesus lied several times
He stole,
He dishonored his parents very directly (“What have you to do with me, Woman!”)
He incited murder (“better he be drowned”)
He was physically violent
He was bigoted (“I am only here for the sons of Israel”)
He was unjust
He punished small crimes with infinite punishment.
He invented immoral rules.
He demanded repression of inquiry. (“enter like a child”)
He preached obedience over personal responsibility.
He demanded servility.
He demanded authority he did not earn.
He commanded his followers be ad hoc and merciless in their judgement of others
He endorsed all of the evil of Yahweh
He was a manifestation of Yahweh’s supposed “Truth”
Jesus is simply disgusting. Only a sadomasochist could enjoy such a person.
He is completely unworthy of standing in judgement over anyone. Even the “Sermon on the Mount” is a famous plagiarism of Krishna texts and his inversions rendered most of them immoral.
The few ‘moral’ bits about Jesus are not original to him:
“Love thy neighbor” is a command from Leviticus which existed before he was born.
“Forgive your enemy” is a command from other texts which he simply repeated.
“The Good Samaritan” is just a story about the Golden Rule which existed long before Jesus.
If one plagiarizes a teaching from a primitive culture one is not made a god or a prophet for doing so. Such is the art of the Con Game.
LikeLike
Yup, kinda trolly answer. Did you get it all out? Let’s continue:
Have you asked yourself why the need to half study something or learn a bit about it, only to rail on it in a way that doesn’t allow discussion? You aren’t giving the achademic footnotes of someone playing at being smart, actually I would say your not yet at the C level but you don’t have total ignorance either.
It’s like you did just enough homework to say you’ve read the book, but don’t care about the assignment; in lecture your still debating other students when you can make big sweeping claims.
It’s a lot of “listen to me” with very little indication you want a conversation. I’ve learned online never ask someone if they are alright, hurt, etc. as they punish you for concern; is the “listen to me” from ego or being ignored?
LikeLike
You don’t rebut my points. Where are your rebuttals? By all means, bring it on.
FOOTNOTES:
(A) Sermon on the Mount is a plagiarism of Krishna which pre-dates Judaism:
1. The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta, Swami Prabhavanada, Vedanta Press, 1991
2. Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1; Krishna Yajurveda, Kathakapisthala Samhita, 42.1; Jaiminiya Brahmana II, Samaveda, 2244
(B) The injunction to “Love thy neighbor” predates Jesus by hundreds of years. It was written in the oldest Judaic Law – to repeat old laws is not a sign of divinity, but plagiarism.
Leviticus 19:9 – LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF
(C) The Good Samaritan is a story about the Golden Rule which itself
predates Jesus by centuries:
The Golden Rule – “Do not do to others that which you would not want done to you” –
is the most ancient moral code and requires no gods. A version of it exists as far back as 10,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
—
Have I not put enough on the table? Calling me a troll is not a rebuttal.
The evidence shows Jesus to be a plagiarism.
The evidence shows a Jesus who is not complying with his own laws.
LikeLike
Uh those would be end notes. And just ploped here like that mean nothing.
I’ve been trying this whole time to not get into a meaningless back and forth. I’ve made it clear I don’t accept or hold your position or scholarship; additionally, I’ve got enough actual credentials on the subject that getting into the debate and even trouncing you won’t validate me or you.
That’s why my original comment was on method and context, but you’ve been calcitrant on everything.
I think that you’d punish me for attempting to share knowledge, so I think we are done. I’d charge tuition for a 101 class and you want to make me pay.
LikeLike
You have no answers and no rebuttals.
But you have ‘Credentials’? Yeah – now I’m bored.
LikeLike