|
Post by Isapop on Dec 28, 2022 19:55:30 GMT
Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, is much preferable to God as portrayed in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 28, 2022 20:17:36 GMT
I think he is a positive role model and had good intentions. Even though he might not exist, that doesn't mean he didn't have any positive influence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2022 21:33:43 GMT
Jesus taught many good lessons on how to treat people and how to find true happiness. Many non-believers find it irritating how some cherry pick parts of the Bible for their own needs. Couldn’t Christians flip the same argument against non-believers? Your post is kind of a case in point. That could be. Anyone forcing their beliefs on another is wrong. While Jesus himself didn't like to condemn others, there are some in organized religion who do cherry pick the Bible and take phrases out of context for their own needs. Take homosexuality. Jesus himself never mentions it, but there are those who take phrases from the OT and use it as an excuse to bully gays.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 28, 2022 21:50:10 GMT
I think overall his lessons were good, though he does tend to lose me at times. He was a pacifist which I think a lot of people tend to confuse with isolationism or noninterventionism, pacifism goes beyond merely refraining from unecessary conflicts, it's the belief that any violence is unjustifiable under any circumstances, which I think is absurd (if someone is attacking you, you have every right to fight back, not "turn the other cheek" as Jesus professed). Also his idealogy is basically anarchoprimitivism (give up all your wealth and possesions), and as someone that enjoys modern comforts and liberal democracy, I'll pass. I think the point Jesus was making with “turn the other cheek” is simply “don’t retaliate”. The spirit of his message there is that it’s better to suffer rather than cause others to suffer.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 28, 2022 22:24:10 GMT
Couldn’t Christians flip the same argument against non-believers? Your post is kind of a case in point. That could be. Anyone forcing their beliefs on another is wrong. While Jesus himself didn't like to condemn others, there are some in organized religion who do cherry pick the Bible and take phrases out of context for their own needs. Take homosexuality. Jesus himself never mentions it, but there are those who take phrases from the OT and use it as an excuse to bully gays. Jesus never mentions anything about a husband beating his wife or kidnapping children neither, so do we then assume that he was ok with it? When you think about it It’s really just an argument from silence. It’s true he doesn’t mention homosexuality explicitly, but that doesn’t mean he condoned it. But he does address it 3 separate ways. Firstly, we know Jesus defined marriage as a unification between a man and a woman according to the way God created them. Secondly, Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. And one of the Levitical laws flatly forbids homosexual practices. And lastly Jesus said that it is not what food goes into a man’s mouth that defiles them but what comes out of their heart, he then proceeds to list off sins of heart and one of those are sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is defined biblically as all forms of sex outside of the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2022 1:17:41 GMT
That could be. Anyone forcing their beliefs on another is wrong. While Jesus himself didn't like to condemn others, there are some in organized religion who do cherry pick the Bible and take phrases out of context for their own needs. Take homosexuality. Jesus himself never mentions it, but there are those who take phrases from the OT and use it as an excuse to bully gays. Jesus never mentions anything about a husband beating his wife or kidnapping children neither, so do we then assume that he was ok with it? When you think about it It’s really just an argument from silence. It’s true he doesn’t mention homosexuality explicitly, but that doesn’t mean he condoned it. But he does address it 3 separate ways. Firstly, we know Jesus defined marriage as a unification between a man and a woman according to the way God created them. Secondly, Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. And one of the Levitical laws flatly forbids homosexual practices. And lastly Jesus said that it is not what food goes into a man’s mouth that defiles them but what comes out of their heart, he then proceeds to list off sins of heart and one of those are sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is defined biblically as all forms of sex outside of the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman. Your question in your OP was what we thought of Jesus. Now you are going thru the Bible and cherry picking points to justify your opinions on certain issues. Jesus didn't agree with that, which is why the Pharisees and Him had different opinions. But we will have to agree to disagree on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 29, 2022 4:21:43 GMT
I think overall his lessons were good, though he does tend to lose me at times. He was a pacifist which I think a lot of people tend to confuse with isolationism or noninterventionism, pacifism goes beyond merely refraining from unecessary conflicts, it's the belief that any violence is unjustifiable under any circumstances, which I think is absurd (if someone is attacking you, you have every right to fight back, not "turn the other cheek" as Jesus professed). Also his idealogy is basically anarchoprimitivism (give up all your wealth and possesions), and as someone that enjoys modern comforts and liberal democracy, I'll pass. I think the point Jesus was making with “turn the other cheek” is simply “don’t retaliate”. The spirit of his message there is that it’s better to suffer rather than cause others to suffer. Sometimes Jesus talks like Mister Miyagi. "Turn the other cheek" could mean something akin in his culture "bend like a reed." “ Why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?” Jesus sounds like a communist. Of course, we are always anxious about our clothing, Jesus, and how we look and to have the most fashionable sneakers and pocketbooks. If we don't anxiously buy, the creature collapses.
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Dec 29, 2022 4:28:06 GMT
Jesus Christ was one of the original SJWs.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Dec 29, 2022 12:15:47 GMT
wash his feet and then dry them with her own hair--sounds pretty Roman Emperor-ish to me--and then telling those same followers who wanted to sell the balm and use the proceeds to aid the poor not to do so with the words quoted above. She wasn't washing his feet and drying them with her hair. That would be admittedly very weird, not to mention ineffective. She was pouring perfume on his feet and spreading it with her hair - so they're essentially sharing the perfume in an intimate manner - still pretty weird from our perspective granted but definitely less BDSM! The passage makes clear that it is meant to be symbolic of anointing a corpse. It's not portrayed like a Roman emperor using his slaves like mere objects. As for selling it for the poor - the moral seems to be that we should be able to give gifts to show our affection to one another, without thinking it's immoral not to spend the money on the poor instead. It's also made clear that Judas doesn't really care about the poor and was just trying to throw shade on Mary and Jesus. Somehow that scenario doesn't make it seem all better.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Dec 29, 2022 12:17:19 GMT
It doesn't alter the fact that he was lolling about amongst his followers, allowing a woman (possibly of dubious virtue, at least by the standards of the time) to wash his feet and then dry them with her own hair--sounds pretty Roman Emperor-ish to me--and then telling those same followers who wanted to sell the balm and use the proceeds to aid the poor not to do so with the words quoted above. I suspect it was more a case of Judas Iscariot seeing through him, insofar as that episode certainly does nothing to make Jesus appear as any sort of paragon of humility or champion the less fortunate by that point in his career. And for the record, I don't take the Gospels as an accurate or unbiased historical record of anything whatsoever. What do you thing Our Lord Jesus Should have Done? Tell St. Mary to get that stuff off of Him & rid of it???!!! Wouldn't such a gesture be shoving her humility & generosity back in her face???!!! No, I would say that it was a definite case of Our Lord Jesus Seeing through Judas. The Gospel according to St. John says that Judas handled the money purse of the Apostles, & would take the money for himself. That was the reason why he was so disappointed with seeing such expensive ointment & perfumes being used in the way that they were. Because he would have rather preferred that St. Mary Magdalene have shown her love for Our Lord by selling those things so that she would have donated all the proceeds into their money bag (that he was put in charge of), so that he could get his hands on it. Nobody said that the Gospels were unbiased. They were written by Our Lord's Apostles & disciples to preach Our Lord to the world. I strongly suspect that the same thing can be said about most of our world's religious, national, & pretty much all other kinds of historical writings too.I.e., the Gospels aren't any more trustworthy than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Dec 29, 2022 13:50:33 GMT
Personally, I'm not a fan. I find the whole cult aspect really offputting, and I didn't find anything he said to be particularly deep or thought-provoking. If some people find his teachings to be beneficial, that's great. It's just not my cuppa.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 29, 2022 16:22:19 GMT
Personally, I'm not a fan. I find the whole cult aspect really offputting, and I didn't find anything he said to be particularly deep or thought-provoking. If some people find his teachings to be beneficial, that's great. It's just not my cuppa. May I ask which part of his teachings do you particularly take issue with?
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Dec 29, 2022 17:12:37 GMT
Personally, I'm not a fan. I find the whole cult aspect really offputting, and I didn't find anything he said to be particularly deep or thought-provoking. If some people find his teachings to be beneficial, that's great. It's just not my cuppa. May I ask which part of his teachings do you particularly take issue with? Gosh, it's been over two decades since I read the Gospels, but I still remember a parable about the wedding clothes, or something? A guy was given clothes to wear to a party, but he didn't wear them, so they kicked him out into the darkness and there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I thought that was really stupid. It shouldn't matter what we look like or what we wear. I suppose it was saying that we must be covered with the blood of Christ in order to get into Heaven, but I think that's stupid too. I just don't like the entire premise of Christianity, where a savior, or a sacrifice, or middleman is required. We all screw up, and instead of just asking for forgiveness and trying to avoid the consequences of my actions, I'd prefer to learn from my mistakes and take responsibility, and try to become better and wiser. The whole religion seems to be based on avoiding consequences for the harm we cause, and I think that's a really dangerous philosophy to live by. I know some Christians who are almost devoid of conscience because they think that God will forgive whatever sins they commit, and they won't have to pay for it. I find that really disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Dec 29, 2022 18:41:32 GMT
May I ask which part of his teachings do you particularly take issue with? Gosh, it's been over two decades since I read the Gospels, but I still remember a parable about the wedding clothes, or something? A guy was given clothes to wear to a party, but he didn't wear them, so they kicked him out into the darkness and there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I thought that was really stupid. It shouldn't matter what we look like or what we wear. I suppose it was saying that we must be covered with the blood of Christ in order to get into Heaven, but I think that's stupid too. I just don't like the entire premise of Christianity, where a savior, or a sacrifice, or middleman is required. We all screw up, and instead of just asking for forgiveness and trying to avoid the consequences of my actions, I'd prefer to learn from my mistakes and take responsibility, and try to become better and wiser. The whole religion seems to be based on avoiding consequences for the harm we cause, and I think that's a really dangerous philosophy to live by. I know some Christians who are almost devoid of conscience because they think that God will forgive whatever sins they commit, and they won't have to pay for it. I find that really disturbing. What if.... learning from your mistakes, taking responsibility, and trying to become better and wiser is being described, metaphorically, by putting on party clothes? Same with accepting the consequences of wearing your old clothes (staying your old self) or putting on party clothes (improving yourself as described above)? And some see that life as trying not to sin ever again... To which are we to attribute to the teaching of the guy that repeatedly said "Now sin no more" to the people he preached to and/or possibly healed (according to the story)?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,296
Member is Online
|
Post by The Lost One on Dec 29, 2022 21:44:44 GMT
Somehow that scenario doesn't make it seem all better. Sure it might still be somewhat problematic, but I don’t think it's as bad as 'Jesus uses his followers as human towels'.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Dec 29, 2022 21:47:01 GMT
May I ask which part of his teachings do you particularly take issue with? Gosh, it's been over two decades since I read the Gospels, but I still remember a parable about the wedding clothes, or something? A guy was given clothes to wear to a party, but he didn't wear them, so they kicked him out into the darkness and there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I thought that was really stupid. It shouldn't matter what we look like or what we wear. I suppose it was saying that we must be covered with the blood of Christ in order to get into Heaven, but I think that's stupid too. I think the overall lesson of that parable is a demonstration of the inadequacy of self-righteousness. The whole thing is basically an analogy of the gospel. The King represents God the Father, the son represents Christ. The servants are God’s prophets/messengers. The guests who rejected the invitation and mistreated and killed the servants are the Israelite people. The Kings retaliation and punishment against the murderers was a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. The invitation then being offered to everyone instead represents the gospel message being made available to all. The garment symbolises the righteousness of Christ. This was a gift from the King provided to everyone at feast. If you do some research on the historical background of the customs of that time you would understand better what’s going on here. It was tradition that when a King threw a big party he provided the garments, so that those that were a lower station wouldn’t feel embarrassed. The man wearing his own garments represents disrespectful people who think they can get to heaven through their own self-righteousness. The King examining all the guests represents God’s judgement of their works. I don’t understand how you would find any of that stupid tbh. I feel that’s a bit of a mischaracterisation. Some of the primary tenets of Christianity is about repentance and sanctification. All Christians are taught to repent, meaning to learn their lesson and turn away from their wrongdoings, and sanctification, meaning to be set apart and made holy by striving to live a Christ-like life. That’s virtually the definition of trying to be better and wiser.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Dec 30, 2022 1:00:07 GMT
Gosh, it's been over two decades since I read the Gospels, but I still remember a parable about the wedding clothes, or something? A guy was given clothes to wear to a party, but he didn't wear them, so they kicked him out into the darkness and there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I thought that was really stupid. It shouldn't matter what we look like or what we wear. I suppose it was saying that we must be covered with the blood of Christ in order to get into Heaven, but I think that's stupid too. I think the overall lesson of that parable is a demonstration of the inadequacy of self-righteousness. The whole thing is basically an analogy of the gospel. The King represents God the Father, the son represents Christ. The servants are God’s prophets/messengers. The guests who rejected the invitation and mistreated and killed the servants are the Israelite people. The Kings retaliation and punishment against the murderers was a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. The invitation then being offered to everyone instead represents the gospel message being made available to all. The garment symbolises the righteousness of Christ. This was a gift from the King provided to everyone at feast. If you do some research on the historical background of the customs of that time you would understand better what’s going on here. It was tradition that when a King threw a big party he provided the garments, so that those that were a lower station wouldn’t feel embarrassed. The man wearing his own garments represents disrespectful people who think they can get to heaven through their own self-righteousness. The King examining all the guests represents God’s judgement of their works. I don’t understand how you would find any of that stupid tbh. I feel that’s a bit of a mischaracterisation. Some of the primary tenets of Christianity is about repentance and sanctification. All Christians are taught to repent, meaning to learn their lesson and turn away from their wrongdoings, and sanctification, meaning to be set apart and made holy by striving to live a Christ-like life. That’s virtually the definition of trying to be better and wiser. Thank you for the in-depth answer. I had forgotten some of the details. The historical aspects are interesting, but I guess I still fundamentally have a problem with the whole concept of a savior that makes us worthy of Heaven through his righteousness. That just doesn't make any sense to me. Personally, I see life as a classroom, where we face challenges and hardships, and learn from our triumphs and failures. It's just a lifelong process of growth and maturing as individuals. I suppose you would call that self-righteousness, but humility is absolutely one of most important lessons learned if you're on any sort of spiritual path. People who have massive egos are a giant red flag to me that they haven't learned very much about life yet. I know a lot of Christians who seen to think that God is there just to serve them, while I tend to see it as the opposite, that we should be the servants, that we should be the hands and hearts of the Divine in this world. I suppose that's rather like the Prayer of St. Francis. Huh, I never thought of that before. I do find it fascinating how you can find similarities between different religions and cultures. After a certain point, they all pretty much reach the same conclusions, that we must release our pride and egotism, that we should serve others, and not be too attached to the material world. It's very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Dec 30, 2022 11:20:54 GMT
Somehow that scenario doesn't make it seem all better. Sure it might still be somewhat problematic, but I don’t think it's as bad as 'Jesus uses his followers as human towels'. Much better he used them as human ointment pads, apparently. BTW, the passage does indeed state that Mary Magdalene dried Jesus' feet with her hair prior to applying the contested ointment; however it states that she 'wet his feet with her tears' rather than specifically washed them: etc.usf.edu/clipart/188000/188020/188020-mary-magdalene-washes-jesus-feet.htm
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 30, 2022 13:23:31 GMT
That could be. Anyone forcing their beliefs on another is wrong. While Jesus himself didn't like to condemn others, there are some in organized religion who do cherry pick the Bible and take phrases out of context for their own needs. Take homosexuality. Jesus himself never mentions it, but there are those who take phrases from the OT and use it as an excuse to bully gays. Jesus never mentions anything about a husband beating his wife or kidnapping children neither, so do we then assume that he was ok with it? When you think about it It’s really just an argument from silence. It’s true he doesn’t mention homosexuality explicitly, but that doesn’t mean he condoned it. But he does address it 3 separate ways. Firstly, we know Jesus defined marriage as a unification between a man and a woman according to the way God created them. Secondly, Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfil it. And one of the Levitical laws flatly forbids homosexual practices. And lastly Jesus said that it is not what food goes into a man’s mouth that defiles them but what comes out of their heart, he then proceeds to list off sins of heart and one of those are sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is defined biblically as all forms of sex outside of the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman. If it was allowed in the Mosaic Law, then he couldn’t speak too much against it. He was already in hot water for telling men they should divorce since that constituted adultery. However, I daresay kidnapping a child was a serious offense that even the Romans frowned upon, but to stop beating a wife, that’s telling a man how to run his household.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 30, 2022 13:26:14 GMT
Sure it might still be somewhat problematic, but I don’t think it's as bad as 'Jesus uses his followers as human towels'. Much better he used them as human ointment pads, apparently. BTW, the passage does indeed state that Mary Magdalene dried Jesus' feet with her hair prior to applying the contested ointment; however it states that she 'wet his feet with her tears' rather than specifically washed them: etc.usf.edu/clipart/188000/188020/188020-mary-magdalene-washes-jesus-feet.htmThat’s fucked up.
|
|