|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 2:18:36 GMT -5
Wow! An atheist who believes there is universal meaning in the universe? Awesome! You are far from "Awesome" lee! I have words that are better not put on paper that I feel describes you.
Now I have to leave this sandbox where you have fun kicking sand all over everyone.
I've got serious work to do, Bye, bye! In the Bible, sand represents or concerns people. What do atheists prognosticate about ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 2:20:51 GMT -5
No he wasn't. His concept of a kingdom, God's Kingdom, involved but transcended this world's immediate kingdoms at once. The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace? Hell no. Again, who or what were the Roman government that they should define sedition?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 26, 2013 2:25:24 GMT -5
Hmmm... but they believe in sin? Sounds like the doctrinal differences between east and west are semantic. I didn't say they don't believe in "sin" -- I said they don't believe in the "doctrine of original sin". That's not a semantic difference, it's a difference in the concept of human nature. Ok. And I'm sure there are quibbles over the meaning of a fallen nature. The bottom line is mankind has a problem and needs deliverance, be it one of absolution, exoneration, or direction (purpose). I'm sure East and West are less divided than you imply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 2:41:14 GMT -5
Lee, why do you think that anyone, atheist or otherwise would be "amused" at someone that is hanged on a cross to die?
Just what kind of crazy ideas do you have about atheists?
We are people who just believe in one less GOD than you do!
What is your reasoning that you paint us as such terrible people?
Your mouth, (or mind) needs a good washing out with soap!
You are terrible people. You execrate the soul or the living essence (the I of every human being) of any hope of living again in whatever form that may be. More than that you teach that life is a uni-dimensional, non-referential, linear progression .... "Only what happened" as Rational says, without a hint of curiosity over the "What happened?". Big call, terrible. More importantly the two reasons given don't fit. How can anyone extricate anothers soul? The best anyone can do is limit or control the belief structure someone grows up and resides in. Now that may be a 'bad', but it does seem to be the way of the world, whatever belief system you hold on to. Everyone preaches their own, everyone indoctrinates their own. Who teaches life is simply a linear progression? The 'law' of cause and effect does not explain the universe as we know it. Teaching an understanding of cause and effect does not imply it describes all that is. Don't blame all atheists for the views or actions of individuals, rational or otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 2:49:36 GMT -5
Just wondering, Some time ago, I noticed a discussion of whether or not Jesus actually died for our sins. Took our place and so forth. I was surprised at a number of individuals whom I've felt are deep abiding Christians felt that no, he didn't actually die the death of our sins. God raised him up again as we sing. Yikes! it's sort of like "He died for our sins!!! All praise and thanksgiving" And then later, Uhhhm, well not exactly. Anyway, just was wondering. Any conclusions here, any doubts? Almost seems like all the "doctrine" issues are insignificant compared to this one. I don't believe in Jesus as the son of god who walked on earth and will lead us to the promised land. I don't believe there was a person on that cross as described that knew and was actually dying for all humanities sins. Further, I can't see why a god would believe that relevant. On the otherhand I can see why symbolically that is significant to human beings. In that sense I am a total believer. Jesus did not need to die for our sins or even exist, his power in giving faith/hope/direction to humans is real. Faith does not require a 'historically true' belief system to work.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 26, 2013 5:38:36 GMT -5
The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace? Hell no. Again, who or what were the Roman government that they should define sedition? Are you smoking something tonight?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 5:44:55 GMT -5
Quote - "The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace?"
Bob, this is completely false. It has no basis in the Gospels, history of even common sense. The Romans, like Herod, had no problem with Jesus. They even showed a degree of respect for a man who urged the Jews to obey and respect the law, even Roman law.
It was the envy and fear of the Jewish Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus. The Romans were involved because they didn't have much choice - they wanted to keep the "Roman peace."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 7:34:47 GMT -5
Quote - "The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace?" Bob, this is completely false. It has no basis in the Gospels, history of even common sense. The Romans, like Herod, had no problem with Jesus. They even showed a degree of respect for a man who urged the Jews to obey and respect the law, even Roman law. It was the envy and fear of the Jewish Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus. The Romans were involved because they didn't have much choice - they wanted to keep the "Roman peace." Up to three Roman Centurions recognised Christ as the Son of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 7:37:32 GMT -5
Ram, stop agreeing with me. It unsettles my contrarian mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:13:23 GMT -5
To me the foundation and basis of the Christian spirit is love and respect for our fellowman and for the creation and the creator .. respect and honor for truth and genuiness..freedom from the falseness of hypocrisy and egoism of self-righteousness --- capacity for thankfulness and for forgivness etc etc
The nit picking issues of self-proclaimed theological experts hardly falls within the basis or foundation of the Christian spirit, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:21:29 GMT -5
Edgar I feel your definition is the classic "good person" rather than "Christian." Christianity requires, nay, demands that the person go beyond the classic "good" person's resume of humility, love, honor etc.. Jesus made this clear many times. Many of the people who rejected Him would have readily fitted your virtue list, ie fathers giving to their children, people who salute one another, healers, decent law-abiders etc..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:51:35 GMT -5
Ram, stop agreeing with me. It unsettles my contrarian mind. Okay, let's see if we can disagree? How many Centurions was it? One, two or three? Whatever you decide, I'll go for one of the remaining answers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 8:54:14 GMT -5
Well, I dunno, I thought Centurion meant a hundred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 9:08:02 GMT -5
Well, I dunno, I thought Centurion meant a hundred. Well ole' Cornie was in charge of one hundred soldiers and all his household and undoubtedly at least some of those under his command had accepted Jesus, even before Peter knew that the way was opened up to the Gentiles. It was to a Roman soldier that Peter unleashed the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles. Epic stuff! Beats Ben Hur hands down! Well Cornie is one Centurion, but there was the Centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant and there was the one at the Cross who recognised Jesus as being the Son of God. That could be three Centurions. Maybe Cornie was the other two, or one of them? We're back to our argument; was it one, two or three? In Roman terms, a Centurion was a Commander with 100 soldiers under his command. By your reckoning, Cornelius was 100 years of age! It could be argued that the Holy Spirit was first given to members of the Roman Army in its unleashing amongst the Gentiles?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 26, 2013 13:35:29 GMT -5
He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually. What is sedition? Inciting a revolt against the governing Romans. He had the plaque above his head saying King of the Jews. This tells us what the Romans crucified him for. They felt he was trying to oust them and become the governing leader of his people. Whether that was his true goal doesn't matter. The Romans thought it was and they crucified many so called Messiahs for it. Jesus had a big enough following that he came to the attention of the Romans. The incident in the temple where he overturned the vendors tables etc. was an open confrontation against the right for the Sanhedrin to take money for their 'services'. He felt their healing, ritual purification etc should have been done for free and he was doing that himself. Most who went around 'healing' as Messiahs actually charged for their services. However, when he did that he drew attention to himself and jeopardized the Sanhedrin's right to collect money and they didn't want that. They turned him in and the Romans would not have thought twice about executing him for sedition. That would be how they viewed it because they dipped into the coffers of the temple priests quite often themselves.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 26, 2013 13:42:23 GMT -5
The Romans ruled Palestine, and Jesus was on the side of the rebels who wanted the Romans booted out. No he wasn't. His concept of a kingdom, God's Kingdom, involved but transcended this world's immediate kingdoms at once. That's actually inaccurate. It is the spin the gospels put on things after the fact when he went and got himself crucified. It is actually one of the reasons why he was the one of many Messiahs that weren't just forgotten when he was crucified like all the rest. Paul is responsible for that spin actually. He didn't know Jesus and he really didn't care because he was pretty much making things up as he went along. That is why he made the original apostles so upset with his teachings. He wasn't interested in who or what Jesus really was. He was only interested in forming a religion. However, having a Messiah that got himself killed wouldn't be all that good at establishing much of a following. So Paul changed it up to say Jesus was talking about a spiritual kingdom, and he wasn't trying to overthrow the Roman government. That was important because Paul had to live among the Romans and to blame the Romans for what they did would have been suicide for him and his followers.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 26, 2013 13:47:16 GMT -5
The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace? Hell no. Again, who or what were the Roman government that they should define sedition? Lee do you know nothing about the conditions when Jesus was alive? The Roman Empire ruled the Jews. They taxed them, governed them, killed them if they tried to revolt. So their definition of sedition mattered a lot because it is what killed Jesus. Their definition of what they felt he was doing. He was challenging their right of rule. They didn't allow that and death was the penalty.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 26, 2013 13:54:51 GMT -5
Quote - "The Romans cared not a whit about Jesus' kingdom of heaven -- he came riding into Jerusalem to the praise of throngs of people (all of whom hated the Romans), he railed on every Jew who kissed up to the Romans, and he caused a riot in the face of high Roman security. You think the Romans thought he was coming in peace?" Bob, this is completely false. It has no basis in the Gospels, history of even common sense. The Romans, like Herod, had no problem with Jesus. They even showed a degree of respect for a man who urged the Jews to obey and respect the law, even Roman law. It was the envy and fear of the Jewish Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus. The Romans were involved because they didn't have much choice - they wanted to keep the "Roman peace." That is inaccurate if you know the circumstances. It was a combination of the Sanhedrin and the Romans. You are talking about a man that had been reported many times for his brutality in the past with crucifying the Messiahs. Pilate would not have thought twice about getting rid of Jesus and crucifying him for sedition. The gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem and it was very important for a new up and coming religion to NOT blame the governing body for the death of their leader. Therefore they blamed the Jews completely for his demise and started centuries of antisemitism. They were involved, yes, but they were by no means the only ones that wanted him dead. It would have been suicide to blame Rome for crucifying Jesus. So they blamed the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 26, 2013 13:59:05 GMT -5
Edgar I feel your definition is the classic "good person" rather than "Christian." Christianity requires, nay, demands that the person go beyond the classic "good" person's resume of humility, love, honor etc.. Jesus made this clear many times. Many of the people who rejected Him would have readily fitted your virtue list, ie fathers giving to their children, people who salute one another, healers, decent law-abiders etc.. Personally I would rather be defined as a good person according to Edgar's definition than to be defined as a christian. I have met some pretty unloving christians.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 26, 2013 14:52:53 GMT -5
In the Bible, sand represents or concerns people. As do stars. What is your point? As it turns out, atheists are included in the group known as people. I could make up whatever you wish with the same accuracy as theists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 3:17:42 GMT -5
Edgar I feel your definition is the classic "good person" rather than "Christian." Christianity requires, nay, demands that the person go beyond the classic "good" person's resume of humility, love, honor etc.. Jesus made this clear many times. Many of the people who rejected Him would have readily fitted your virtue list, ie fathers giving to their children, people who salute one another, healers, decent law-abiders etc.. Bert how interested do you think the thief on the cross, or the woman at the well, or the fishemen on their boat, or the man beaten on the side of the road would have been in your theological discussions? Theological nitpicking reminds me far more of the Pharisee mindset -- than of the teaching and example of Christ for the blessing of God. To me it is rather obsurd (even obcene) to suggest that the beautiful God given attributes of love and forgiveness and empathy/respect and humility etc etc are not significant within (your!!) Christianity. As Paul said, this embodiment of love IS Christianity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 6:17:51 GMT -5
The thief on the cross is a very special case! We have to be careful about having death bed confessions because of the "thief on the cross." People who found God a bore, all the days of their lives, can't expect to soften God's heart ten minutes before snuffing it. They clearly would find heaven a bore as well.
The woman of the well was clearly a woman with questions in her heart. I am sure a lot changed with her life after that - starting with the guy who weren't her husband.
And the good Samaritan story is just that - a story.
The real problem for Jesus wasn't bad people, but good people who felt they needed no repentance, and turning their lives around. This included even his brothers and sister.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2013 11:24:36 GMT -5
The thief on the cross is a very special case! We have to be careful about having death bed confessions because of the "thief on the cross." People who found God a bore, all the days of their lives, can't expect to soften God's heart ten minutes before snuffing it. They clearly would find heaven a bore as well. The woman of the well was clearly a woman with questions in her heart. I am sure a lot changed with her life after that - starting with the guy who weren't her husband. And the good Samaritan story is just that - a story. The real problem for Jesus wasn't bad people, but good people who felt they needed no repentance, and turning their lives around. This included even his brothers and sister. Good point Bert. How do you know that hell is a terrible place and heaven is so lovely? Maybe heaven is hell for some people and hell is heaven for others? Since I don't believe in either destination, this is merely a question to think about.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Nov 27, 2013 12:06:18 GMT -5
They are. If Jesus didn't die for our sins what did he die for, to amuse atheists? He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually. Snow That opinion conflicts with Biblical accounts that rulers washing their hands of responcibility. Saying they found no fault in Jesus. ken
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2013 12:23:09 GMT -5
He was crucified for sedition. That was quite clear. He challenged the positions of the Sanhedrin and the Romans and anyone who did that was crucified. There were many Messiahs crucified for exactly that right around the same time as Jesus was crucified. It was quite common actually. Snow That opinion conflicts with Biblical accounts that rulers washing their hands of responcibility. Saying they found no fault in Jesus. ken I realize that. However, it would be inaccurate if we don't take into consideration who Pilate was and his record for crucifying Messiahs. Knowing his track record from historical documents on the man, it is highly unlikely he washed his hands of it, or cared one whit about whether he crucified yet another peasant for sedition. It would make no sense at all knowing his record and personality. The Jewish people were nothing to him. There would have been no reason for him to protect Jesus from his own kind. It is an attempt later on by the persons who compiled the gospels to make Rome look blameless and put the blame on the Jews. In reality, there is no indication that he would ever think twice about getting rid of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Nov 27, 2013 21:46:17 GMT -5
Snow That opinion conflicts with Biblical accounts that rulers washing their hands of responcibility. Saying they found no fault in Jesus. ken I realize that. However, it would be inaccurate if we don't take into consideration who Pilate was and his record for crucifying Messiahs. Knowing his track record from historical documents on the man, it is highly unlikely he washed his hands of it, or cared one whit about whether he crucified yet another peasant for sedition. It would make no sense at all knowing his record and personality. The Jewish people were nothing to him. There would have been no reason for him to protect Jesus from his own kind. It is an attempt later on by the persons who compiled the gospels to make Rome look blameless and put the blame on the Jews. In reality, there is no indication that he would ever think twice about getting rid of Jesus. Snow So your rejection of the biblical account is based on some mans opinion? ken
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 27, 2013 23:38:33 GMT -5
I realize that. However, it would be inaccurate if we don't take into consideration who Pilate was and his record for crucifying Messiahs. Knowing his track record from historical documents on the man, it is highly unlikely he washed his hands of it, or cared one whit about whether he crucified yet another peasant for sedition. It would make no sense at all knowing his record and personality. The Jewish people were nothing to him. There would have been no reason for him to protect Jesus from his own kind. It is an attempt later on by the persons who compiled the gospels to make Rome look blameless and put the blame on the Jews. In reality, there is no indication that he would ever think twice about getting rid of Jesus. Snow So your rejection of the biblical account is based on some mans opinion? ken It's based on historical records that the Romans kept. The bible is also just man's opinion Ken. I don't look at it the same way you do. So when I am reading and researching I look at all the records and history as something that has been written by men. I weigh the agendas, the probabilities etc. I look at the records of Pilate that got sent back to Rome about him, all the complaints. The thousands that he crucified for doing much less then Jesus did. Then I decide what makes more sense. Pilate acting with any compassion towards someone brought before him for inciting the Jews has zero credibility knowing the kind of man he was documented to be. However, knowing the gospels are written after the fall of Jerusalem, knowing that the Jews were definitely in the bad books of the Romans, knowing that the new religion was more Greek than Jewish, knowing that they could not blame the Romans for their leader's death and hope to survive, knowing that having a leader that didn't succeed in his mission of freeing the Jews from Roman domination, tells me that the people writing the gospels would be very very careful to place the blame entirely on the Sanhedrin and make the Romans look blameless. Anything else would be suicidal. I'm not saying the Sanhedrin didn't have anything to do with it. It's clear they did. In fact it is documented that the Head Priest and Pilate 'worked well together'. It was in the Sanhedrin s personal interest to keep Rome happy because it kept them in power over the Jewish people. They raked in a lot of money and the Romans helped themselves to that money. It was a symbiotic relationship the temple priests and the governing staff of the Roman empire had. So that's how I came to my conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 28, 2013 0:04:30 GMT -5
Snow So your rejection of the biblical account is based on some mans opinion? ken That is certainly one possibility. Another is that Snow looked at the evidence presented regarding the subject and arrived at her own conclusion. The bible is simply another source.
|
|