I completely understand the natural response many theists would have to this question, but try to think about it a little deeper before replying.
.. What if you saw the numbers of people who believed in your religion start to dwindle away (which they slowly are by the way) until just you and a few thousand or so were the only ones left? .. What if you went to your local house of worship, to find that no-one there believed any more? How many would it take for you to begin questioning yourself? Or do you think that no matter how many broke away from religion, you never would?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I think the devoted ones will still stay with their beliefs but those who have always had doubts will leave. The basis of any good religion is the follower and, as such, they will follow whatever is most comfortable.
I would stay true to my beliefs even if everyone left. That way I would have the place to myself, come in late and leave early and even make up my own rules as I went along. Oh no, did I just become a Christian?!
Well, as a West Indian, I can say that the number of people who believe in my family's indigenous religion are few and far between right now, and have found what's left of a very intricately ritualistic belief structure boiled down to a few horrid caricatures that pop up here and there in pirate and zombie movies.
The destruction of the native religion pretty much went along the lines of the destruction of the culture, and population, in general. It happens. Just ask Celts and Druids.
And really, it's fine, though sometimes I feel compelled to throw ash at things and wear a dove's foot around my neck. That, and I miss the holidays sometimes, but I never believed in the gods.
So to answer your question, it would probably go just like it's always gone in the past. Easily.
Few years from now, it is very possible that religions will no longer be part of human's life. Hopefully. Because religions can't really prove the existence of god as they described him.
If you are caucasion or cockoid, you already are
blacks browns and yellows, and Negroid and mongoid are the dominant species.
I'm a Christian and I question myself all the time. It's a sign of humility. If you think you know everything perfectly and there's no more need for improvement or growth, you're way off track. I'm already in a minority of Christians because the beliefs I hold aren't the typical Christian ones (eg on homosexuality, hell and evolution). But the typical popular western style of Christianity we see in the media is not much like what jesus is on about anyway, so Im ok being in a minority. I'm guessing atheists feel like they're in the minority, and yet you have no problem with it either?
I think that Danny did not mean to address you but yea you are correct here you must know how most atheists feel but still, you cannot fully understand.
To give you an idea of how we feel:
We see you as a bunch of Satanists that think that Satan is the good guy and base their life on him and his will.
Shocking right?
Yes that is exactly how most atheists see theists, worshiping one of the most evil characters one could possibly imagine.
Even worse then Satan.
You cut hell out of the equation but do you cut the child mental rape that is forced on innocent children when they are indoctrinated without being given a choice?
Why is not done when the kid has the maturity needed to choose for himself?
Why is it a must to force your god on innocent young children?
A satanist cult does just the same thing and there is no difference between the two, both of them consider themselves the good guys.
Both base their growth on brainwashing innocent children.
I have four kids and I am trying hard to teach them the way of Jesus: love for your neighbour, love for your enemies, peacemaking, generosity, selfless sacrifice and putting others first, kindness, compassion, humility, holding your possessions loosely, creating space in your life, contentment instead of greed etc.
Which of those would you prefer me not to indoctrinate my kids with?
all of them.
The problem is not the subjects but the connection of those subjects with your idea of god.
The Method is the problem, teach them to understand why something is good or bad and not to accept it because you or god said so.
The idea that those things were delivered to us by god is just a lie which you are directly or indirectly brainwashing your children with.
You are forcing on innocent children something which is so complex to understand that you yourself struggle to explain it to adults like me.
You so much do not understand it with reason that you cannot even convince a human being like me with any kind of decent reason that your god's thought crime legislation is somehow moral or a good thing.
Yet you scare your children with the idea that there is always someone watching them.
(Usually placed more nicely like there is someone watching for them and loves them(lie))
How do you expect to be right in doing so with children that have been raised to see you as their own role model.
You are abusing the trust your children have in you to indoctrinate an idea which is evil and hurts their critical thinking so much that they cannot make reason anymore, just like you.
You are not teaching them to doubt things regarding what people say about subjects(including god), you are teaching them that god is a fact(directly or indirectly).
The need to have doubt in everything is a survival tool that improves a society and increases knowledge.
We abolished slavery that your Jesus accepted so much thanks to having doubt in him claims.
Not the other way round.
You yourself are a better person then your god that punishes people for just thinking something he doesn't want.
You make your children think that this sick evil thing is a good thing because you are biased by your religion.
I am not saying that you are a bad father but I am saying that your religion is like a filter that can make you do evil things to benefit it's leaders and make them look like good things.
It was created to control the minds and it still is very successful.
Wow that's a lot of judgment. How do you know how I teach my kids?
Actually I don't tell them to do anything "because God said so." That's the Old Testament way of doing things. Jesus wanted us to actually think about what we do and what we believe. Eg Why is it good to forgive people? Because it means we can be friends with them again. Why is it good to be generous instead of greedy? Why is it good to be kind?
Most parents give their young kids instructions like this, whether they believe in God or not. There's nothing wrong with telling a kid "Be nice to your sister."
Also, you already know I don't believe God punishes people for doing the wrong thing.
So do you not know what your Jesus is suppossed to have said ...
or do you deliberately "cherry pick" what to teach your kids.?
You seem to miss out some of the more "salient" episodes.....
Mark
10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Typical Christian ,"give up everything now for a possible reward later ...maybe... perhaps..
or what about the good old family values.....?
Matthew
10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Luke
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
But then there is always "gentle Jesus ,meek and mild" ....
Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew
8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
There seems to be a trend here..... and what was that question you posted....
Oh yes..."Why is it good to be kind?"
and you teach this stuff to your kids ???
Yea watchman, you are pointing out the eil parts which are self evident, but he may cherry pick those too.
My reply is more on making him see that even the good parts of his religion are wrong or evil.
If I said to you "Man I could eat a horse!" would you call the authorities?
Again too generic as a reply, that personally, it does not deserve an answer.
You are alluding the Jesus somehow was just exaggerating to make effect, but this is your own claim and it is not backed up by reason.
To back up anything with reason you have to show why Jesus needed this exaggeration in the first place, what is the moral outcome of this exaggeration, etc..
This is how you back up something with reason.
All you do is constantly claim things without and reason behind them, just unsupported claims.
To take the reason in the "Man I could eat a horse!" thing, one would need to understand the context in which it was said first.
Building this context comes from the previous text and the text after.
This is what backing up your claim means, analyzing the context without your own personal bias into the mix.
Your context of what Jesus is, should should not effect the current conclusion of the context of this argument.
On the contrary, the context of what Jesus is, whatever it is, has everything to do with the conclusion and context of the argument.
The horse statement was a joke. It means "I'm really hungry." Maybe they don't say that where you are. I was trying to think of a colourful phrase that was fairly universal. No worries. The point I was trying to say is that Jesus was a storyteller and used many of the poetic and literary devices that good storytellers use. Eg "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven." Do you need me to prove that Jesus was a storyteller?
Lloyd Blankfein and Wall Street aren't too fond of that bible verse, conflicts with their claim of doing god's work....LOL
"On the contrary, the context of what Jesus is, whatever it is, has everything to do with the conclusion and context of the argument."
No it doesn't
You have established what Jesus is, from what the church told you, but the church derived what Jesus is from the text, you cannot uses what the church told you to explain the text because it would be a circular argument.
You have to look at the text with new fresh eyes and see if they match the conclusion done by the church.
"The horse statement was a joke. It means "I'm really hungry.""
I know, but some people eat horse meat everyday so I did not want to jump to a conclusion without know the right context.
"The point I was trying to say is that Jesus was a storyteller and used many of the poetic and literary devices that good storytellers use. "
yes he is, and in every story there is a moral, yet the moral of the story when it comes to slavery is not don't have slavery but quite the opposite, it is slaves always obey your maser's will.
His moral is the problem, which you dismiss without even trying to analyze it in deep.
Eg "It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven." Do you need me to prove that Jesus was a storyteller?
The moral; the rich will find it hard to follow the path of Jesus.
The moral with the slaves: Obey your master's will no matter if you know it or not.
He is hinting to be grateful if you don't get punished for not knowing his will.
You still haven't given any context yet for that parable or story, which does not appear to even be a story since Jesus did not always tell parables and stories but talked and accused people of things like the Pharisee being a den of vipers.
Moral: they are lairs and do not trust them.
What is the moral of the slave parable you so much like to avoid to answer?
"teach them the way of Jesus: love for your neighbor, love for your enemies, peacemaking, generosity, selfless sacrifice and putting others first, kindness, "
Are you teaching them "the way of Jesus" or are you teaching them "Why is it good" with reason?
I can assure you they are not compatible. Let me point out the differences:
love for your neighbor,
Jesus: love him no matter what to follow the Jesus path.
Reason; love him/her if he deserves love, you are free to not love him.
love for your enemies,
Jesus: love them no matter what
Reason: you do not need to love them at all and you are free to hate them and stay away from them if you want
peacemaking,
Jesus; keep the peace no matter what
Reason; try to keep the peace as long as there is justice and fairness. If your rights are broken you have the right to break the peace. eg slavery.
generosity,
Jesus: give everything you have to the poor and don't give little from the many.
Reason: you can help IF you can and want to.
selfless sacrifice
Jesus: this life is a test and when you die you will join god so dying is a good thing, welcome suffering in this world since it will be payed ten fold in heaven.
Reason: only done when your morality tells you that it is a better choice (eg be a hero to save someone). Avoid suffering and pain if possible.
putting others first,
Jesus: love everybody like yourself
Reason: accept that you are born egoistic, your body automatically thinks about yourself first. Accept the fact that you cannot love everybody like yourself and survive in this world. But do love where it is reasonable to do so.
kindness,
Jesus: be kind even to dangerous people and animals no matter what.
Reason: be kind when ever you can but sometimes you must make the hard choices and remove the danger by force.
compassion
Jesus: if they are slaves do not rebel but accept a slash if you do not follow your master's will even if you did not know it.
Reason: be compassionate regardless if you are a slave or not.
humility,
Jesus: be humble when thinking about god(don't ask questions on him) but then arrogantly think of yourself as chosen by god and on the right path, build your universe as if god had you in mind ignoring how many children die every minute from drowning.
Reason; you should be humble when facing most arguments since there is always room to have more knowledge on any subject.
Since you do not have al the knowledge, humbleness is the right path.
holding your possessions loosely,
Jesus: give everything to the poor and follow him, leave even your family to follow after Jesus path.
Reason: keep your things and work hard to gather more so everybody can benefit in the society and can do more charity in the long run. Thus Invest wisely and not throw away your potential.
creating space in your life,
Jesus: go to mass every week and pray every day Decreses space
Reason; use your time wisly and thus have a better life.
contentment instead of greed
Jesus: do not attach yourself with earthly things because the after life is what is important.
Reason: try to live your life as happy as possible without the need to exaggerate and want always more, try to appreciate the beauty of life.
As you can see, it is not the subjects themselves which are the problem but the METHOD used to explain them
YOU are teaching your kids the wrong reasons for those subjects if you teach them "the way of Jesus" and not the way of Reason.
There are with ods and in some cases jesus is pure evil.
In fact I have yet to find anything that Jesus got right with regards to morality.
He always has the wrong reasons for everything I have seen.
If you brainwash a child with the wrong reasons then he has the wrong version of reality and ends up saying something as stupid as there is no hell in the bible where it is very clear that there is for any sane person which can read.
Yes I am judgmental because you keep not justifying your UNTRUE claims but just claiming them.
Like:
There is no hell in the bible?
Jesus is love?(like he loved slaves)
Ignoring all the points I raise that are hard to answer?
If you do not defend your claims, then I must assume that you are weak or wrong in your claims and decided to not popularize the argument and change the subject.
It irritates people when you do this, but I am so confident in what i have studied that I can demolish every single subject in favor of Jesus because i know his origin and his motive for saying most of the evil things he said in the bible.
Unlike you, I have done an extensive research because at one point in time I wanted to believe because it was the TRUTH not because it makes me happy.
Cherry picking the bible and cutting the things you do not like makes you happy but you are not being honest with yourself and with others. This is displayed in all your arguments, you have this absurd idea that that Jesus is a good guy, clearly he is not.
If he was he wouldn't just have cherry picked the people to heal and to help when he was on earth. He would have done it to everybody if he loved them all the same.
He is just showing of with magic tricks in the story to inspire people and attract attention to the Jesus character.
Every roman emperor in that period did most of the same magic tricks like Jesus yet you do not think that they are the good guys.
The only difference with Jesus is that he was crucified for considering himself the son of god of the Jews.
There are millions of people that suffered worse deaths and for the right reasons(eg heroes) but somehow Jesus is better because he claims that he saved your soul too when he died and resurrected.
This is like saying that when someone kills your children, he is saving their soul in the process.
Yes, it is ridiculous but you are accepting it without any reason just because a book says so.
And this same lack of reason is being sent to your children directly or indirectly when you teach them "the way of Jesus".
It seems reason is a little bit more selfish than Jesus on most of these. Actually reason sounds a lot like capitalism. There are a few where i think you've misrpresented Jesus, but for probably about half I agree with how you've put it. For a couple the 'reason' bit is actually what jesus put forward. And I stand by my belief: that we will only get to world peace, global health, widespread happiness etc if we follow the way of Jesus.
I have defended my claims on those other subjects over and over again, using relevant scriptures and taking into account the ones that you bring up as well. I haven't avoided any topics, even the uncomfortable ones. We've had some quite lengthy discussions my friend. You disagree with my claims, but that doesn't mean I'm not backing them up. You just don't agree with HOW I'm backing them up. A lot of it comes down to how we see the Bible.
I'm backing up my claims by referring to the Bible and it's story and culture, which is obviously where my beliefs would come from.
You say the Bible is something completely different, even that it was written by completely different authors with evil intent. Therefore anytime I speak about the Bible, you call my argument invalid.
There's no way for us to get anywhere on any of these topics if you see the Bible like that. But again that doesn't mean I'm not backing up my claims. How else did you expect me to justify them?
Here's how it goes play by play...
Ben: Jesus wants us to do this.
Jeff: Where?
Ben: Here, in this bit of the Bible.
Jeff: No he doesn't. Jesus is made up. The Bible is evil. Experience means nothing. Come up with some different proof.
Ben: ...
Jeff: Ha! See, you can't.
"It seems reason is a little bit more selfish than Jesus on most of these. Actually reason sounds a lot like capitalism. There are a few where i think you've misrpresented Jesus, but for probably about half I agree with how you've put it. For a couple the 'reason' bit is actually what jesus put forward"
be more specific, which one "sounds a lot like capitalism."?
which ones "misrpresented Jesus"?
"reason' bit is actually what jesus put forward"
lol no, it is what your morality put forward that came before Jesus since you are a better person then Jesus character was.
Again which ones are you talking about?
"You disagree with my claims, but that doesn't mean I'm not backing them up."
You have not backed up any argument except the one about child sacrifice in the old testament which I grant that there are mentions on the OT against child sacrifice but your claim was that it was something against god's will and in that you were wrong since from the very start child sacrifice was the tenant of god himself and I quoted them and again you refused to support your claim from then on.
You also refused to acknowledge that there are contradictions about child sacrifice which is rather obvious.
"Therefore anytime I speak about the Bible, you call my argument invalid."
It is not true, I analyze well your claim and see what reasons could you have for such an interpretation.
It nearly every time ends to be inconsistent with what is written.
When I point you to those inconsistencies you refuse to address them.
"Here's how it goes play by play...
Ben: Jesus wants us to do this.
Jeff: Where?
Ben: Here, in this bit of the Bible.
Jeff: No he doesn't. Jesus is made up. The Bible is evil. Experience means nothing. Come up with some different proof.
Ben: ...
Jeff: Ha! See, you can't."
LOL where did I ever reply like that, why are you treating me like some mediocre debater?
I am constantly forcing you to be more specific on things and you refuse to do so every time and change subject or just stop replying.
"Jeff: No he doesn't. Jesus is made up."
This is not my answer, my answer is something like:
How does your interpretation of this text explain this contradiction?
How does your idea of Jesus being a good guy explain this part of the text?
Then you take a very generalist approach again and say its the context which you avoid to explain in anyway.
I am asking you which context does it make it OK to beat your slave even if he doesn't know your will?
If it is just a story then what is the moral of putting such an evil piece in the story and claim it as a good thing and a must.
You avoid answering here and fall back to be very generic and change subject.
I am the one constantly forcing you to be more specific and not the other way round.
My own interpretation of the bible is irrelevant, it does not effect my judgement of your interpretation at all.
You current context, "that Jesus MUST be good" and therefor you MUST try and find the most logical interpretation for that problematic condition is your bias.
It does not allow you to analyze the text objectively.
I am ready to accept that the Romans had nothing to do with the NT but I do it after analyzing the text with any context not before like you do.
I do not let my bias interfere with my judgment. After that I do apply the "roman authors context" and suddenly everything fits without contradictions, then and only then I make my conclusions.
The trick is to avoid contradictions. You are just ignoring the contradictions and that is what makes me conclude that you are biased.
It's not possible to answer all of your questions here. It would blow out the conversation beyond all recognition and I don't have enough time to have 50 conversations at once. Which ones do you want me to address?
"You have not backed up any claim except..." See this is what I'm talking about.
I'm starting to wonder if you think anyone who disagrees with you is not using logic, or hasn't done research. That's a pretty arrogant position to hold.
As for the beating of slaves, you are taking a parable about a master who beats his slaves and making the context prescriptive for us (eg "Therefore, masters are allowed to beat their slaves."). That's not how to read parables or listen to any story at all. If we treated all of Jesus' parables like that we would end up with these commands....
"You must beat up travellers on the road and take their money."
"You should all be deep-sea divers."
"You should take your inheritance early and spend it all partying in foreign countries."
And so on...
"Which ones do you want me to address?"
Pick one of them, try with the first one and justify your claim that Jesus does not mean what i said or that reason is the same as what Jesus says.(as you claimed)
You made the claim that they are the same, you simply cannot make a claim without justifying it.
It doesn't matter if it creates 50 different arguments, don't make the claim then.
If i start claiming that Jesus was gay and say that i cannot justify it because to answer your questions it would take 50 different answers and don't have the time for it.
You think this is acceptable in a mature discussion?
If you make a claim, be ready to support it else don't make it.
Though this is an excuse, all you need is to pick one of them and show that I was wrong, you do not need to pick them all at least to start with.
I never asked you to answer everything here and now but at least answer 1 of them or start by answering your own claims.
You haven't really answered anything regarding your own claims yet.
As for the beating of slaves, you are taking a parable about a master who beats his slaves and making the context prescriptive for us
Yes it is relevant to the people at that time period, that is why jesus used it to explain to peter what the 'son of man' will do when he comes
40"You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect." 41 Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?"
This is a Jesus trying to explain what will happen when the son of man comes.
He is comparing the son of man to the master and the rest including his disciples as the slaves.
Since according to Jesus, the slaves deserves a beating or be cut to pieces so will all those who do not follow Jesus path suffer.
Moral: follow the right path always else you might be punished just like a slave to his master's will.
Here Jesus is not only depicting the son of man as a slave master but is also describing the attitude that we all must have to god.
We are the slaves of god and even if we do not know his will, if he says we deserve punishment, his will is always right.
This is the context I can decipher from that parable and Jesus is not only accepting slavery but he is using it to explain the coming of the son of man.
I am not taking it out of context at all, if I am please explain where, since up until now you haven't.
"You must beat up travellers on the road and take their money."
"You should all be deep-sea divers."
"You should take your inheritance early and spend it all partying in foreign countries."
And so on..."
Again changing subject and make unsupported claims, different passages have different interpretations, you cannot generalize like this.
"I'm starting to wonder if you think anyone who disagrees with you is not using logic, or hasn't done research. That's a pretty arrogant position to hold."
What you think is irrelevant, what you can demonstrate is what I care about.
You want to think I am an alien, be my guest, but if you want a serious discussion you need to start supporting your claims with reason and not with just more unsupported claims like this one.
If one doesn't make rush conclusions on assumptions, it is hard to catch him in mistakes, like the "eating a horse" example, I did not jump to the conclusion that you were hungry(although I thought so) but considered other solutions, thus I answered in a manner that showed my lack of information in your statement.
That being said, I am not biased to think that anyone that disagrees with me is not using logic, or hasn't done research.
Every time I claimed something I supported it with logic or evidence, you haven't in most cases so no wonder that you feel that way.
Ok here we go. This might get long. I'm trying to be very careful how I say things so it takes me a long time to properly address these things. I could still spend a lot longer on each point, and look in detail at the relevant passages in the Bible, but that would take even longer and make for a very long conversation. Sorry if that seems evasive. I'm trying to keep this reasonably follow-able for people. Anyway, here's my take on each of those topics....
"love for your neighbor,
Jesus: love him no matter what to follow the Jesus path.
Reason; love him/her if he deserves love, you are free to not love him."
Yep that's about right. Jesus' way is less judgmental. Requires a lot of grace and forgiveness. The reason way is definitely easier though.
"love for your enemies,
Jesus: love them no matter what
Reason: you do not need to love them at all and you are free to hate them and stay away from them if you want"
Similar to above. I believe Jesus' way is the only way to get to peace. The reason way allows for lasting hate, hurt and bitterness. The situation in the Middle East is a good example.
"peacemaking,
Jesus; keep the peace no matter what
Reason; try to keep the peace as long as there is justice and fairness. If your rights are broken you have the right to break the peace. eg slavery."
This one is trickier. I don't think Jesus wanted us to "keep the peace no matter what" (in the way that people become meek and weak, letting others do whatever they want to them). This brings to mind the "turn the other cheek" passage in Matthew 5. Watch this closely, because I'm going to talk about the context here ;)
Jesus was talking to a group of people oppressed, by the Romans, their own religious leaders and also by wealthy landowners. His audience was often the poor and powerless. Humble fishermen, prostitutes, slaves, women, farmers, tax collectors. If they fought back against unfair treatment (such as a slap in the face, or someone taking their coat, or a soldier forcing them to carry a pack a mile) it would have been a swift and decisive end to them. Eg the rule was (and sorry I'm not sure how I learned this - maybe reading Walter Wink) that a soldier could force a peasant to carry their pack for a mile, but no more. Any more than a mile and it was classed as abuse by the soldier. If you refused to do it you're in trouble. But if you CHOSE to walk a second mile with the soldier's pack, it would put the soldier in a very uncomfortable position.
A similar thing happens with the other examples. A wealthy landowner could take the coat of a poorer person (such as a slave or hired hand) and no one would care too much about it. They could claim it was security for a loan or something. But if the poor person then gave his shirt as well, the unspoken statement would be "See what you've done to me. You've left me practically naked. What are you going to do about it?"
A strike on the right cheek was a backhanded slap, which was an insult against an inferior person. But if that "inferior" person then offered the other cheek, it would force the attacker to use their fist instead, and the statement would be "Come on, hit me properly, like I'm a real person. Man up." In each example the second bit (second mile, the second item of clothing, the second cheek) makes the oppressor look awkward. It's a form of NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE, maybe the only one available.
The other thing that's important about each of these examples is that the first act was not their choice. It was unfair and forced (walking the first mile, losing your coat, getting slapped), but the second was a CHOICE by the mistreated person. And choice, whatever it is, gives dignity. It means you're a person, not a powerless object to be abused, and that's an important reminder to the powerful.
"generosity,
Jesus: give everything you have to the poor and don't give little from the many.
Reason: you can help IF you can and want to."
Jesus takes generosity a bit further than reason. It's also worth noting that Jesus didn't ask EVERYONE to give everything to the poor. He only said that to one rich dude. People have taken this teaching in different directions throughout history. The Franciscan monks actually did give everything to the poor and lived in poverty. Most people think of it not so much as a command but a general guide: be generous and look after the poor.
"selfless sacrifice
Jesus: this life is a test and when you die you will join god so dying is a good thing, welcome suffering in this world since it will be payed ten fold in heaven.
Reason: only done when your morality tells you that it is a better choice (eg be a hero to save someone). Avoid suffering and pain if possible."
I don't think Jesus ever said this life is a test, or that dying is a good thing in itself, except that it can be very loving sometimes if you're laying down your life for someone else. But yes, there is hope for after death because of Jesus. The "welcome suffering" idea is only if it's because you're following Jesus well, giving possessions away, getting disowned by your family for your beliefs etc. We're not just rejoicing in any kind of suffering. There's a Romans 12 verse that says "Mourn with those who mourn; rejoice with those who rejoice." It's realistic. It doesn't say "Tell mourners to stop mourning because it's good they're suffering." This is one of the ones where the "reason" side lines up with the teaching of the early church.
"putting others first,
Jesus: love everybody like yourself
Reason: accept that you are born egoistic, your body automatically thinks about yourself first. Accept the fact that you cannot love everybody like yourself and survive in this world. But do love where it is reasonable to do so."
Again, Jesus' way is more generous and selfless (and it allows for people looking after themselves - that's the "as you love yourself" bit.) Many millions of people throughout history have lived this selfless way of Jesus and survived.
"kindness,
Jesus: be kind even to dangerous people and animals no matter what.
Reason: be kind when ever you can but sometimes you must make the hard choices and remove the danger by force."
Jesus wanted us to be wise, not stupid. Yes we are to be kind to everyone (I'm not sure where you're getting the animals bit but it does line up with Bible teaching), but we should also be wise and remove danger whenever necessary. Sometimes this will be a hard choice.
"compassion
Jesus: if they are slaves do not rebel but accept a slash if you do not follow your master's will even if you did not know it.
Reason: be compassionate regardless if you are a slave or not."
Wtf? Jesus never said this. But he does want us to be compassionate.
"humility,
Jesus: be humble when thinking about god(don't ask questions on him) but then arrogantly think of yourself as chosen by god and on the right path, build your universe as if god had you in mind ignoring how many children die every minute from drowning.
Reason; you should be humble when facing most arguments since there is always room to have more knowledge on any subject.
Since you do not have al the knowledge, humbleness is the right path."
The reason bit I agree with absolutely. As for the Jesus bit, no way. We are encouraged to ask whatever questions we want of God, and his followers always have. The rest of it I think you're referring to the popular western version of Christianity seen most obviously in parts of America, which I would argue is not much like what Jesus was on about. Jesus' version of humility is putting others first, not thinking of yourself as being superior to them, but being ok to do even the mundane tasks like washing their feet. The "chosen" bit of it is definitely in the Bible, but it's not exclusive. The gospel is open to anyone and everyone. It's like God chose everyone in the world. They just have to accept it. There shouldn't be any sense of superiority from Christians on that one, or they've got it wrong (which many have).
"holding your possessions loosely,
Jesus: give everything to the poor and follow him, leave even your family to follow after Jesus path.
Reason: keep your things and work hard to gather more so everybody can benefit in the society and can do more charity in the long run. Thus Invest wisely and not throw away your potential."
Holding your possessions loosely is about understanding that everything we have is a gift. And it's a gift to be shared, not held on to. You alluded to this a little in the reason bit.
I use this analogy with people sometimes: Imagine God gave one person a million dollars and the other just one dollar. There's more than enough for both of them. The first one should share, and gain happiness from being generous. And the second one gains happiness because someone was very generous to them. The inequality at the start provides the opportunity for much happiness. Psychologically speaking, more happiness than they would have had if they each started with the same amount. That's the situation we have in the world at the moment. If your family has a car, you're in the top 6% of the wealthiest people in the world. And there's a great responsibility that comes with that, to look after the poor. And this is not just for us to do "in the long run," but a way to live our lives daily even now, giving to charities, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting those in prison (Matthew 25). Christians throughout history have taken this idea very seriously.
"creating space in your life,
Jesus: go to mass every week and pray every day Decreses space
Reason; use your time wisly and thus have a better life."
Nope, as far as I know Jesus didn't say that. It's not recorded in the gospels anyway. The sabbath is about NOT doing stuff. Churches have unfortunately turned that into doing a lot of stuff, but there are many that are trying to turn that around. My church is just a group of friends and their kids who catch up at my place every couple of weeks. We eat food, talk about Jesus, play backyard cricket, eat more food, support each other with whatever's going on in our lives, and try to make a positive difference in the world.
"contentment instead of greed
Jesus: do not attach yourself with earthly things because the after life is what is important.
Reason: try to live your life as happy as possible without the need to exaggerate and want always more, try to appreciate the beauty of life."
I'm going to claim both of these as Biblical perspectives :)
I said start with one of them, not all.
Well i will answer the first 3 first else we will have too many to discuss and it will become too lengthy but I will address the others in later posts.
""love for your neighbor,"
Jesus: love him no matter what to follow the Jesus path.
Reason; love him/her if he deserves love, you are free to not love him."
Yep that's about right. Jesus' way is less judgmental. Requires a lot of grace and forgiveness. The reason way is definitely easier though."
You call this justifying that they are the same thing?
They are clearly not the same thing thus you are agreeing that your claim that Jesus and reason are saying the same thing is wrong.
""love for your enemies,
Jesus: love them no matter what
Reason: you do not need to love them at all and you are free to hate them and stay away from them if you want"
Similar to above. I believe Jesus' way is the only way to get to peace. The reason way allows for lasting hate, hurt and bitterness. The situation in the Middle East is a good example."
You seem to change the term love as if it means respect or something similar.
You do not love your enemies, no one really does, else you would be feeding them just like you do to your kids.
Apart from that, it doesn't matter which "way is the only way to get to peace." what is relevant to this argument is that they are not the same thing.
Jesus is asking the impossible
I can do the same, the best way to peace is to be able to control all the minds of the world, thus there will be peace. See how stupid it sounds to someone who is unbiased from this brainwashing.
Jesus is wrong and impractical.
No one loves the suicide bombers that just killed your own son in one of their attacks, at best we pity them and not wish them ill but not truly love them like your own kids. So it is not the only way, it is one of the most improbable ways for peace.
It hasn't worked during the time of Jesus and it hasn't worked till this day for a reason, because it is ridiculous.
It just doesn't happen in this world.
You are teaching your kids things which are impossible thus making them feel guilty(sinners) when they fail.
24"But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. 25"Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry.
"I don't think Jesus wanted us to "keep the peace no matter what" (in the way that people become meek and weak, letting others do whatever they want to them)."
"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either
This is the passage before and after it, where in this context does it in anyway hint at any other option rather then "keep the peace no matter what"?
Your claim is not supported but just claimed. jesus never says to rebel against your masters if you are right in your claim, he says give the other cheek even when you are right.
What you think is your own bias and you need to remove it before making such claims.
"Jesus was talking to a group of people oppressed, by the Romans, their own religious leaders and also by wealthy landowners."
We agree here, he is asking them to "keep the peace no matter what" unlike the unbelievers.
"32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them"
Apart from the contradiction that Jesus assumes that believers are not sinners too here. When we all know that everybody is a sinner and Christianity is for sinners.
"If they fought back against unfair treatment (such as a slap in the face, or someone taking their coat, or a soldier forcing them to carry a pack a mile) it would have been a swift and decisive end to them."
Every time there was change, rebelling against the oppression was the only way that happened.
Jesus way did not remove slavery and it is proven by history. So sacrifices are needed for change to happen. many more lives were lost to slavery in history the way Jesus approached the problem(by submitting to the oppressors)
So not only he was wrong but also evil.
let us focus on these 3 for now and after we can address the others.
And when I mean rebel I mean do not encourage a bad dead, but clearly show that it is a wrong and unacceptable deed, discuss it complain, etc...
Jesus says the opposite:
29"Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either"
Do not complain, endanger the person until he is satisfied, forgive every time.
Jesus here is describing slavery thus he is asking you to accept that you are a slave and be happy with it.
Then in some other parts he mentions suffering on the world is a good thing since it will be rewarded more in heaven.
Constantly Jesus expects you to act like a slave without rights, but submissiveness..
EDIT:
"Do not complain, endanger the person until he is satisfied, forgive every time."
Do not complain, indulge the person until he is satisfied, forgive every time.
"You call this justifying that they are the same thing?" No, I wasn't trying to do that. I was taking each of your thoughts and telling you where i agree with your interpretation and where we differ.
"You are teaching your kids things that are impossible...." One of my favourite theologians, NT Wright says something like "The revolutionary way of Jesus has not so much been tried and found wanting, but has been found difficult and largely left untried."
Love for enemies is one of these types of things. In regards to racial "enemies" (like the Jews and Samaritans in Jesus' time, or the Jews and Romans, or the Jews and the Greeks), the New Testament authors challenge believers to get rid of those racist tendencies, some of which were centuries old. This is one of the themes of the Good Samaritan parable. And to love your neighbour, whoever they are, whatever gender, whatever race, whatever their beliefs.
In regards to more direct enemies (like your example of suicide bombers) it's bloody difficult, but forgiveness makes it possible. We have quite a few amazing stories of families who have ended up forgiving the people who murdered their family members, even going so far as to make sure their "enemy" is treated fairly. Theres a book called "The girl in the picture" or something that tells the story of a girl whose village was brutally destroyed in a war. She lost all of her family and friends, and was horribly burned. But years later she searched for the man who destroyed her town and publicly forgave him. I just watched a movie recently called "The Railway Men" which told a similar story, of a man who was tortured for years by Japanese enemies in war, and then he searched out the man who'd tortured him and they eventually became friends and worked together to bring peace and hope. I heard a story once of a town where a shooter went on a rampage, killing a lot of young people and then committing suicide. But the town didn't allow hate and revenge to consume them, or bitterness to govern their lives for the next decades. They worked through the issues and gradually came to a place of forgiveness, and then they took in the shooter's family, showed them a lot of love and made sure they were well looked after. This is the kind of thing Jesus was talking about. Not impossible, but very difficult. "Forgiving the Dead Man Walking" is another one.
Without forgiveness, you're still being controlled by your enemy. Forgiving them frees you from the hate, anger and bitterness. This is not just from Christianity. It's right through secular psychology as well.
"Without forgiveness, you're still being controlled by your enemy. Forgiving them frees you from the hate, anger and bitterness. This is not just from Christianity. It's right through secular psychology as well."
And it's not necessarily true. Forgiveness is not a requirement to be free from hate, anger, and bitterness. Not forgiving someone for a misdeed against you does not, in fact, mean you are controlled by them.
you speak about forgiveness, but as I have pointed out, forgiving someone is not loving someone.
Again you change subject.
Love your enemy IS NOT forgive or respect your enemy.
They are not the same thing at all.
let me put it more clear to you, your enemy is Satan right?
You have to love Satan as much as you love your children.
That is what Jesus is saying. That is love.
Jesus did not say respect your enemy but love him, there is a difference.
I understand that in jesus context he might have meant something less general but that is not respect or fairness.
You can soften the crush but it is clear that now you cannot say that jesus ask you to love your enemy anymore since now you have to say that Jesus wants you to respect your enemy.
The problem is hypocrisy, Christians say one thing but mean an other depending on the IQ of who is listening.
You can change the meaning of love like you changed the meaning of Hell, but can you claim that you are not biased by such a biased judgement?
Do we agree or not that just used the wrong word when he said love then? he should have used respect or something?
far about minority, now Islam is the fastest growing religion .
Pages