|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:26:24 GMT
No I did not. I responded with what Our Lord Jesus Knew what His Fate would be. "No, I wouldn't say that I wasn't denying arrogance....!" Both lead to death deliberately brought on. This appears just semantics.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 19, 2024 21:37:52 GMT
No I did not. I responded with what Our Lord Jesus Knew what His Fate would be. "No, I wouldn't say that I wasn't denying arrogance....!" Both lead to death deliberately brought on. This appears just semantics. Okay. Maybe I said that wrong. I would say that I WAS denying arrogance. When you showed me the Bible quote, I went on to remind you what was in store for the Christ HIMSELF, when He Said what He Said. Christ Knew His Mission would not end with Him Being Crowned with gold & diamonds on a high, imperial throne, but rather, with Thorns on a Wooden Cross. So a fire fighter who runs into a burning building to save whomsoever is in there, & then gets him/herself killed, is really committing suicide then, I take it....?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 19, 2024 21:52:31 GMT
Okay. Maybe I said that wrong. I would say that I WAS denying arrogance. Fair enough. But others may disagree. Your God is a jealous one, let us not forget, and insists on being appreciated. On pain of hellfire apparently. As mentioned before, all this means much more to you than an atheist like me. But thanks for sharing. However since your JC was supposedly resurrected, before finally floating up into the sky never to return, He did end up in that celestial throne room eventually as one third of your deity. This is not an exact comparison, for that fire fighter would not have the power to save himself from perishing, and in fact would not be likely to be effectively immortal no matter what.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 19, 2024 22:20:19 GMT
Dialog JESUS, again : ”ouch !” Turns. ”Mom, please, stop !”
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 20, 2024 0:50:49 GMT
The views of your scriptures would only matter or carry weight if I placed any value on them and took their central claims seriously. ^^This^^ It really boils down to that central issue. Either you surrender up your credulity to accepting the claims Jesus made about himself, and thus grant him full rights to present himself as he does; or you follow the way of the freethinker who demands proof of outlandish claims, and you respond to Jesus' (and his followers) assertions with the simple, immutable fact that if they cannot provide such proofs, their claims can't be held as valid--or anything other than arrogant assertion. And since the freethinker doesn't accept a book of secondhand tribal tales as 'proof' of anything, he or she is going to fail to find Jesus as much more than a very egotistical young man, albeit one who may have said some wise things, and albeit that a fair number of those wise things had been posited in earlier, more philosophically based, doctrines. Of course, the 'freethinker' and even to some extent the Christian can question some of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and what is meant by them. I tend toward the view that much of what is attributed to Jesus in the gospels is questionable in the extreme. I suppose the chief difference between the freethinker (I've come to like that old term, finding it more accurate and less triggering than 'atheist') and the Christian is that the latter is generally urged to some degree not to question the meanings of those words, much less to engage in any line of thought as to the possibility of their inauthenticity.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 20, 2024 19:37:39 GMT
Okay. Maybe I said that wrong. I would say that I WAS denying arrogance. Fair enough. But others may disagree. Your God is a jealous one, let us not forget, and insists on being appreciated. On pain of hellfire apparently. As mentioned before, all this means much more to you than an atheist like me. But thanks for sharing. However since your JC was supposedly resurrected, before finally floating up into the sky never to return, He did end up in that celestial throne room eventually as one third of your deity. This is not an exact comparison, for that fire fighter would not have the power to save himself from perishing, and in fact would not be likely to be effectively immortal no matter what. God Created everyone & everything. Of course, we have the right to choose to accept or not. That is where free will comes in. Otherwise God Would Have Made us all into robots. Christ still Had to Endure an Extremely Agonizing sort of Death, let's not forget. Firefighters are very strong, & are trained in various survival traits though (just as police are; just as military are).
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 20, 2024 21:08:09 GMT
God Created everyone & everything. Of course, we have the right to choose to accept or not. That is where free will comes in. Otherwise God Would Have Made us all into robots. As has been discussed elsewhere here to death lately, though it is a shame that this supposed deity does not make itself known unambiguously allowing a much more informed decision through using one's free will more wisely. This is perhaps one reason why the number of Christians in the world is only about made up to 2.38 billion of the worldwide population of about 8 billion. Ultimately though a God cannot really ever die and your Christ is apparently a third of one.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 22:50:55 GMT
So what, as long as you don’t die, getting nailed to à planck is fun ?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 21, 2024 21:29:27 GMT
I suppose the chief difference between the freethinker (I've come to like that old term, finding it more accurate and less triggering than 'atheist') It implies though that Christians can't be free thinkers and atheists are automatically free thinkers, both of which I would probably disagree with even if it might be true in general. Yes, there is probably the fear that questioning any of it leads to questioning all of it. Personally, I think Christianity would be healthier if it encouraged debate on these matters.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 9:38:29 GMT
The point about Christian faith and other intellectual faith is that they can’t discuss it. I once asked à muslim friend of mine and he told me the rules changed with times. He’s the only one who told me that. It May be possible to play with words among the community and apply the rules in some different way provided the community achieves common agreement, but the rules still stay untouched. If any kind of damage can follow the results of applying the rules without the said agreement, only things damage needs to ensue is the coming of a supervisor or a whisling end of recess referee.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 27, 2024 11:54:50 GMT
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 27, 2024 12:00:26 GMT
I suppose the chief difference between the freethinker (I've come to like that old term, finding it more accurate and less triggering than 'atheist') It implies though that Christians can't be free thinkers and atheists are automatically free thinkers, both of which I would probably disagree with even if it might be true in general. Yes, there is probably the fear that questioning any of it leads to questioning all of it. Personally, I think Christianity would be healthier if it encouraged debate on these matters. It is true that the Christian can only be a freethinker within a certain proscribed range (or face expulsion by the Christian community if he goes beyond it and makes this known), which necessarily means he cannot be a freethinker in the fullest sense of the word. It assuredly hasn't been healthy for organized Christian religion to discourage open debate and discussion on many problem areas within its purview. It's increasingly running the risk of garnering unfavorable comparison to the intellectual rigidity of fundamentalist Islam, and that's not going to help it at all, in the Western world at any rate, in the coming decades.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 12:23:44 GMT
The views of your scriptures would only matter or carry weight if I placed any value on them and took their central claims seriously. And didn't you accept by implication that your Jesus was sort of arrogant just a message or two back? As for Jesus not choosing to save himself, well, that really confirms the interpretation of suicide by determining one's own demise, does it not? Isn't suicide a sin, according to Catholics? According to them and to some penal codes Edition28 01 24 (only the wages differ : penal justice sends one to jail, body and soul, a)provided one survives an attempt or b) sometimes simply refers to suicide, church forbids the burial in sacred ground. Matter of what happens to the soul is not that clear imho.)
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 12:33:02 GMT
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure. Provided there were antagonizing christ in some kind of contest, which is doubtfull. They are entitled respect for they are dead and can’t reply for themselves, not because they suffered. Not every Christian is a sadist at heart. Sadistic types are sadistic. And yes, history of religion notes that some christians behaved the way you note. Short version, when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 12:52:48 GMT
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure. when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ? Indeed. Such behaviour can be traced back to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen 22) arguably an early example of religious extremism, when based on the conviction that a purported god demanded it, a father prepared to kill his son. Good job an angel stopped him eh?
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 13:46:48 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flâneur, Actually why imaginary beings would not be good at doing their job ?! ! ? From there, the son went physically un harmed, how do you link your reply with my question which emphazises on brevity and refers to brutal deeds, actual ones ? Aren’t you again caught at attempting to dilate debates, sweet honey, mmh ? Hugs, plenty.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 14:10:11 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flâneur, Actually why imaginary beings would not be good at doing their job ?! ! ? Imaginary beings are, duh, not good at anything in the real world. The point was that Abraham was prepared to go through with it as He thought a deity commanded it, at least until instructions were changed. Would the Canaanites (say) be so lucky. There is little essential difference between that and those who use religious justification for atrocities today.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 14:31:50 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur Abraham is a being from their same book as the imaginary being. How are is deeds possibly linked with history I reffered too above ? Not all imaginary beings. Hercules is said to be a hero but his deeds never account’ bottom line. When he brings à monster to his coz’ who ordered him to get it, all his might, succes amount to nothing. His coz is ridicule and Alcee’s deed are in the past, un changed. His children are dead. He killed them on a godess will. Prior (?) Story to this one : Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Same conclusion. Enki remains dead, Gilgamesh heart is still broken, and the human people who asked for Enki are ridiculed. US. Prior story, egypt. What about looking at the future instead of the past, going forward instead of not going forward ? Truly,
Edition forgot the love, love.
Gotta go Mouhah
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 14:46:54 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur Abraham is a being from their same book as the imaginary being. How are is (sic) deeds possibly linked with history (sic) I reffered too (sic) above ? Historical or not, it is arguably an example of religious extremism, as I already said. And scripture does not condemn the event. Also there are plenty of biblical literalists around who think that the Bible is wholly, or overwhelmingly, historical. For some, certainly not. Which is what I just said. You appear to be rambling again. What has this really to do with religious extremism, and the point I made? Sounds fun. When can we expect the proposed deity to show up then? Jesus is running late.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 28, 2024 0:59:33 GMT
It is true that the Christian can only be a freethinker within a certain proscribed range (or face expulsion by the Christian community if he goes beyond it and makes this known), which necessarily means he cannot be a freethinker in the fullest sense of the word. I think that presumes though that a freethinker couldn't come to the conclusion (perhaps the false conclusion, but freethinking doesn't necessitate accuracy) that Christianity is true. Or that Christians will not question their beliefs.
|
|