As defined by you. It seems to me Christ had all of those things given the time he lived in.
And here your intolerance makes itself obvious. In order to maintain your disdain and criticism for all things religious you readily abandon the rationality you say you admire. No! If you started a movement asking people to abandon their religion and to teach others to do the same, but consistantly spoke against violence of any sort, and then long after you were gone others misrepresented your teaching to serve their own purposes and did violence, you would be in no way responsible. It’s ridiculous. How about this. If a scientist makes a breakthrough in his quest to provide cheap energy or a cure for a disease, but then the military perverts his discovery to make weapons, is he to blame for their decisions? Is science then inherently evil because some choose to use scientific discoveries to make deadly weapons? Puh leez!!
So then this religious statement,
"The truth will set you free, " is not really about freedom or liberty?
Humanity is a mix of beautiful moments of love honor and nobility and moments of incredible cruelty, hatred, and depravity, with everything in between. I wonder myself if this earth and future generations will ever find the path to peaceful fulfilling coexistance or will mankind continue to run in cycles of peace and violence? Perhaps the progress is too slow for us to see and believe. One of my own favorite sayings regarding mankind is “Classes come and go, but the second grade is always the second grade”
Again, this manner of thinking seems really illogical to me. Jesus never advocated fashioning any structured religion around him. He merely stressed that people love each other beyond the bounds of social structure and tradition and told his disciples that they should teach the same thing. That’s it. So what’s your point? Don’t really advocate anything because someone might pervert your messege and do something bad. Yeah, don’t advocate being rational because someone might change it to rationalize and then do something bad. Don’t advocate ethics because that can lead to unethical behavior. And oh yeah Pot always leads harder drugs.
Right! And MLK got a lot of his inspiration from Gandhi’s movement in India who got a lot of his inspiration from Jesus. The idea isn’t to be a whimp and not stand up for what you believe in. The idea is to have the courage to stand up for what you believe in without resorting to violence even when others do. It’s a hard concept to grasp. The quakers have a saying which paraphrased is something like.
There is no act that one may commit to diminish the dignity of another man. You can only be diminished by your own actions.
How did you come to that conclusion? This appears to be yet another case of someone misunderstanding of the historical setting taking scripture out of context.
Jesus said that if someone strikes you on the cheek you should turn the other cheek. The Bible is full of refernces to striking people in the neck or crown or even groin, and those are all killing strikes intended to harm the person. But striking the cheek has been since time immemorial and remained until the 20th century an insult blow. It was a literal slap in the face, not a killing blow.
Thus the message of Jesus was unambiguous to people who were alive at the time: If someone strikes you in an attempt to aggravate or humiliate you, don’t respond with violence. Why would anyone following siuch a common sense instruction regret it? How is such an instruction stupid?
I know there are some schools of self-defence that teach escalation, ie someone slaps your cheek you break his nose, he breaks your nose you break his arm and so forth. That might have some merit, and it might not, but certainly the idea that if someone humiliates you, you shouldn’t return violence doesn’t seem stupid or regretable to me.
No doubt some people have misinterpreted this passage over the centuries as you have done, and assumed that it meant that you had no right to defend yourself. But I’ve never seen a serious scholar interpet it in such a fashion. Jesus also gave explicit instructions that his followers carry a sword, which is easy to understand if ‘turn the other cheek’ only applied to insults, but requires some tortuous reading to reconcile with a message of non-violent reposnse to life-threatening attacks.
No, not if I could save the lives of those people by snapping my fingers. I would then be asking my son to go thorugh tribulations when I can achieve exactly the same result if he doesn’t.
And if God can’t save the lives of those millions of people by snapping his fingers then he isn’t omnipotent is he?
This is where these analogies always fall down. As a human father I am limited and will sometimes have to ask or even force my son to experience unpleasant things for his good or the good of others because there is no other way for me to achieve those ends. But God isn’t limited, he can achieve his ends by simply snapping his fingers, That is what omnipotent means. He doesn’t need anyone to do anything in order to save those millions, he simply needs to will them saved. He certainly doesn’t need his son to suffer in order to save those millions. If he does then that is a limitation on his ability to save and as such we are no longer discussing God, who by defintion has no limitations on what he may achieve.
Yes, but hopefully and ultimately this approach triggers social change where inequity and victimization are no longer the norm, at which point secular ethics and laws can (and should) take over, letting religious values fall into the background. It’s using a relatively gentle form of dogma (love your enemies) to neutralize a much harsher dogma (i.e. blacks should be kept in their place).
I find I have to object to religious views that no longer serve the purpose originally intended and in fact are being used to intrude on secular matters. Whether or not Jesus is the son of God, a whole lot of creepy violent stuff has been done in his name.
First, you asked what I found admirable in someone; of course I’d use my own standards. Second, it was an unethical, irrational, ignorant time; if he was a man of his time as you claim, that’s what he was. I’d expect a god to do better.
The guy who wanted to bring a sword instead of peace was not anti-violence. The guy who based his beliefs on the Old Testament ( an extremely nasty collection of myths ) was not anti-violence. The people who indulge in tyranny and murder in his name are not perverting his beliefs, they are following them; it’s those who try to promote tolerance in his name who are perverting them ( in a good way ).
Not if it’s Christian; monotheism is fundamentally hostile to freedom or liberty, no matter what rhetoric it’s followers spout.
You seem unwilling to believe that I consider religion a special case. I never said “don’t promote anything”; I said that promoting a successful religion ( especially a monotheism, and one built on the Old Testament ) would inevitably lead to a hierarchical, structured system of oppression and cruelty. That’s what religions do.
Like Blake said, no. If God’s omnipotent, or even just really powerful, he doesn’t need to. Sacrificing your son without need is not the mark of a caring person, much less a father.
It may be a misunderstanding, but it’s the only interpetation I’ve ever heard, both by the people who criticize is and those who promote it. I myself reference in this post the sword comment; that just shows how inconsistent this legend is.
I think thats a great question. In discussions with my dear conservative Christian sister it came down to me asking, “Which person should I let tell me what the Bible means?” If it is* my* soul at stake who should make the decision about how the scriptures are interpreted?"
I think people should take charge of their own spiritual growth and being true to themselves at this moment is the right path. Letting go of long held traditons in the face of social pressure can take some courage.
Doesn’t intent have something to do with Guilt? It does in our own legal system.
As I said before. This makes no sense to me. I just can’t see how Jesus preaching about love and mercy is somehow to blame for the choices and actions of what was done others long after he was gone.
So, my great great grandfather bought a gun to defend his family from Indians. Carves his name on the handles. Generations later someone steals the gun and uses it to kill an innocent person. Somehow, even though my ancestor only advocated self defense, he is somehow to blame for what happened because he put the gun in place and it has his name on it. That also sounds a little like the woman who sued McDonalds because her son got too fat from eating there all the time. It’s their fault because their food has the potential to be unhealthy.
And it is strangre that those who believe the Bible are doing so. In John 17:3 Jesus is quoted as saying that God sent Him. In 17:4 He says that He has finished the work He was given to do. In 18:3 Judas brings the band of captors to Jesus. In 18:4 Jesus asks for whom the band is looking even though He knows the answer. In 18:5-8 The dialog is that the captors say they are looking for Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus answers that He is their target. Going on to 19:28, after the trial comes the crucification and at the end there is this: “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.”
That all sounds to me like the actions of a willing accomplice.
And He wasn’t all that friendly with those who wouldn’t accept His word from the disciples if Matt 10:12-16 is any clue.
The adjective used to describe the values doesn’t matter much to me. If someone is a good , honest, kind, and courageous person I don’t care what the source of these qualities are. If they grew up in a Christian household, fine. Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist. It doesn’t matter. Gandhi was a spiritual person and King was a Christian but there goals were not to promote their religious beliefs but to seek social justice for others.
I agree that people trying to impose laws that support their religious beliefs and are not really relevant to the welfare of society is not a good thing.
True enough, I would expect you to use your standards. I was just noting that when it comes to religion you can’t seem to recognize those qualities.
I actually didn’t claim Jesus was a man of his time.If you’re going to counter my arguement try not to put words in my mouth.
You keep pulling this passage out of context to support your posotion. Just like a religious fanatic. Congratulations. This was obviously a metaphor refering to a commitment to the principles he taught. It was not a reference to using an actual sword which is shown in him restraining his disciple from useing a real sword.
He did huh? Like to provide any evidence for that? He recognized that those around him believed and was obviously well versed in Jewish law, but since he defied Jewish tradition where’s the evidence that his beliefs were based on the OT?
Then please provide some quotes from Jesus where he advocated tyranny and murder.
We were speaking specifically of Jesus, who according to what info we have, praticed what he spouted, including liberty and freedom.
Not at all. I absolutely believe that. It’s obvious in the way you abandon logic and reason whenever you discuss it.
I know. Dam those Quakers. In this case your arguements just don’t make sense. You’re blaming Jesus for things others did long after his departure. This has no basis in evidence but merely in your own bias.
Omnipotence is not the same as purpose. IMHO it was not the purpose to snap omnipotent fingers and remove choice but rather to provide a powerful living testimony on how and what to choose.
Um…I didn’t say that so there wasn’t really a reason attribute it to me.
But now that you’ve learned a new more correct interpretation you can abandon your prejudice regardnig this particular verse.
The same problem remains - if he wanted to provide a “powerful living testimony” he can do it in any other way he pleases. For example, he can “make” people know this - not harming free will, because it would be the imparting of knowledge, rather than the forcing of behaviour.
Or how about a different method of imparting - which is what i’ve been saying so far in this thread. How about…God comes down from the heavens, floaty cloud, long flowing beard, the works, and simply says what he wants us to know. Powerful living testimony - Check. No murdering - Check. Can be shown to all people across the globe simultaneously - Check.
When even I can think of a better system, the claim that Jesus’ death is the only way to go would seem to lose it’s legs.
Since I don’t believe in traditional Christian theology I won’t argue the point except to say that omnipotence is not the same as purpose. It’s also tied up in our ability to choose. Perhaps it is an act of love to allow us to have the experiences that go along with choice. I might have it within my power to make sure my small children never fall down but that doesn’t guarentee it’s in there best interest for me to do that.
You haven’t just not argued the point here, you have totally failed to address it. God isn’t limited to either or choices like that. God is omnipotent. By definition he can create a solution where both A and B apply. An omnipotent God can prevent children falling down and guarantee it is in their best interests. That is what omnipotent means. If he is limited to either what is in the child’s best interest or what will prevent it falling down then he isn’t omnipotent and thus is not God.
The problem is that once again you have invoked a situation that can only apply to a human father because a human father is limited. God is not limited, he is omnipotent. If you are discussing a being that is not omnipotent then by definition you are not discussing God at all. Or does your non-traditional theology also subscribe to a God with limitations?
Given that you can make sure your small children never fall down while simultaneously guaranteeing it’s in there best interest for you to do that, why would you let them fall down? Isn’t allowing them to fall down when that is not in their best interests an evil act? And since you can create a solution that enables them to not fall down and be in their best interests then isn’t; allowing them to fall down always an evil act?
As I said, you haven’t just not argued the point here, you have totally failed to address it. You have tried to sidestep it by suggesting that this was an act of free choice on the part of Jesus. But it can’t be both an act of free choice and a sacrifice. A sacrifice entails giving up something one wishes to keep. If Jesus gave up his life as an act of free choice then it wasn’t a sacrifice at all. And if Jesus gave up his life because it was a choice dictated by necessity then we are back at square one: why would an omnipotent God allow that to become the necessary choice? Why not create a solution that makes such a choice unnecessary?
It’s turtles all the way down. Either it was necessary for Jesus had to do what he did, in which case God isn’t omnipotent, or else he did it solely because he wanted to, in which case it wasn’t a sacrifice at all. Saying it was a free choice that made it necessary to make a free choice to make it necessary to make a free choice…. doesn’t change the facts.
Unfortunately it’s futile. Believers have a simple explanation for what they see as your error. Faith transcends logic. You are applying human standards to God and you can’t do that.
I don’ see where I mentioned or implied an either or situation
I think the problem is that this type of arguement tends to have both sides applying human perception to the spiritual and eternal. I still think the principle applies. If you’re going to delve into it then it also drasticly changes the perception of suffereing as well. You seem to imply that benevolence equals avoiding anything unpleasent and so if omnipotent God allows us to have that experience when he could blink it away, he must not actually be benevolent or" be" at all. I’m saying, useing a mortal father as example, that it can indeed be benevolent to allow our children to have unpleasent experiences depending on the purpose.
[QUOTE]
Why indeed. It speaks to the heart of the big question that often occurs to me. Why are we here at all? Why would anyone {Jesus or the rest of us} leave a state of heavenly bliss to come experience the mortal struggle?That’s the purpose I was refering to.* If* the purpose is the actual experience then although God could make things all nice it would defeat the purpose to do so. The other issue is suffering. You speak of an omnipotent God but refer to suffering in mortal physical terms. If we are eternal spiritual beings then physical or emotional suffering is fleeting and irrelevent when we return to our true nature.
It’s like chooseing to go on a thrill ride. We know it’s going to be scary but we go anyway. Or it’s like really being immersed in a dramatic movie. The ups and downs of the charecter we identify with move us because we want them to.
That was not my point but you raise an interesting ethical point and I tend to agree. If I take the money I have been saving for my vacation and give it to the poor I have made a conscious choice, but is it a sacrifice? Haven’t I sacrificed my vacation to help others or did I just choose a priority and sacrifice doesn’t apply. Now apply those same thoughts to a GI jumping on a grenade to save his friends. In that split second doesn’t that GI make a choice to jump on the grenade to save his freinds? Does the fact that he made a choice remove the term sacrifice? Most people wouldn’t think so.
I haven’t argued that Jesus death was a sacrifice for us. I wasn’t refering to the death of Christ when I spoke of purpose.
Why would you if the experience was actually the point? I keep hearing that It’s cruel for a God described as benevolent to* let* people suffer but if you carry the arguement out it doesn’t make sense to me to assume a spiritual reality and then refer to fleeting physical suffering as if it has any lasting ramifications. It doesn’t.
I don’t agree. In the Book of Mormon, {which I believe Smith got from somewhere other than an angel} there’s some interesting stuff. One is that the eternal fire refered to is being in God’s presence before we are ready. Like coming from darkness into bright light, it hurts and we can’t stand it so we have to prepare gradually. {Yeah Yeah omnipotent God could change all that, hold on}
The other is that before Adam and Eve {as metaphors} there was nothing to choose. In order to have the experience of free will then there had to be something other than spiritual bliss to choose, which is part of what creation is all about.
It hard to discuss things that are essentialy beyond our comprehension. I can’t discuss quantum physics comfortably because I have such little knowledge in that area but it always peaks my intererst to find reflections of old spiritual principles reflected in quantum physics. In another thread some one said that the big bang isn’t just an event that happened ages ago but is something that is ongoing and we are in the midst of now. I find that is a possibility that unifies spirituality and science rather than seperates them.
Hows the view on your pedestal? I have no problem with you as an atheist, and I don’t believe anyone called you a name. So why do you resort to calling me (me, as in a believer) a “myth-believer”. And my faith a “Fairy Tale”? Do you feel superior to the other 5 billion people in the world who do believe in some higher power? Do you honestly think we are not intelligent? We are all under a delusion?
The world will never have peace until people stop thinking they are better than others who don’t think the way the do. No matter if that thought is religion or politics.
Answer this honestly.
Do you have the same respect for all those who believe in any higher power(s)?
Do you have the same respect for people who believe in the Hindu pantheon?
Do you have the same respect for people who believe that if you burn some special money it goes straight to heaven and your ancestors can buy stuff there with it?
Do you have the same respect for people who believe that blood must flow for the Sun to keep coming up?
Do you have the same respect for people who believe a black cat brings bad luck?
etc…
etc…
etc…
Or do you, just maybe, feel that some of these beliefs are “Myths” and “Fairy tales”?
Say yes to just one of the full range and you too are on a pedestal. Ours is just a bit higher, in that we think your particular religious flavour is a myth as well.
