oh jesus?

MayCaesar

He had some decent points, mainly the concept of individual responsibility: you are only responsible before yourself, and everyone else is only responsible before themselves. This is a principle I was taught from a very young age, despite my family being fully atheist.
He also promoted non-violence, which, while too idealistic, does have its merit and is useful in one's everyday life.

Jesus of Nazareth was a pretty interesting figure, and while I do not think he deserves to be the most popular person in the history of humanity, he certainly was quite remarkable.

Plaffelvohfen

In part yes... I mean, the bulk of his teachings can be summed up in the Golden Rule, which was not even original back then either... The rest of his teaching like "turning the other cheek", not so much... But as a "philosopher", I've no problem with the guy...

maxx

of course, yet the written word can be hard to understand the emotion behind it,  turn the other cheek may have been a dare ; who knows. do unto others..@Plaffelvohfen

Plaffelvohfen

@maxx

Well, the underlying pacifism has some merits as a general rule as in don't be the aggressor, but if you hit me, I'll definitely hit back, hard... There many ways to interpret this, some see it as commanding non-resistance (which I oppose), or non-violence (usually a good idea), or as a command not to take vengeance, which I'm not disagreeing with... But overall, he would still be an average philosopher in my opinion... 

maxx

in a way, the words of his is an open topic on how to understand them emotionally. was he yelling? angry ? happy? stern?  we simply do not know what his emotions were in any of his parables. we simply read the words and decide for ourselves.@Plaffelvohfen

TKDB

@maxx

@MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

Religion in general, is voluntary to engage in.

Just as being non Religious in general, is voluntary to engage in.

And I've come to realize, that some of the non Religious individual, have yet to make an appearance in ANY building, to confront, or protest any Religion based on @maxx's narratives:

        "oh jesus?"

"assuming for the sake of argument that jesus actually existed, yet was not the son of god, but rather some philosopher whose miracles were just nothing more than a magician act, do you consider that his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement into your life?"

I've yet to see any Religious minister, preacher, priest, rabbi, or what have you maybe REFER to themselves as a Magician, or a Miracle worker, so to speak? 

Or even a philosopher for that matter?

I've been to small Churches, with a congregation of 20-30 parishioners.

And I've been to a Church with 300-400 parishioners being present in Church?

And on TV, with Joel Osteen, his services, seem to draw hundreds and hundreds of parishioners to his Religious services.

And this fellow as of 2018,  his televised sermons have been seen by approximately 10 million viewers in the US and several million more in over 100 countries weekly?

So, the words like Magician, or Miracle worker, from as far as I can recall, has never been expressed in Mr. Osteen's direction, by any of the Nationwide news media.

I believe Jesus existed, because the Priests, back in his day, pushed, and succeeded in having Jesus Crucified.

So maybe if those same Priests, who were biased and prejudicial towards Jesus, didn't push to have Jesus Crucified to begin with, and just left him alone, (for doing nothing wrong in the first place,) and then they went about, "trash talking the man, in order to mock and ridicule him, and then Crucified Jesus to death, thus making Jesus's name, a Globally recognized name, because of their biased and prejudicial efforts, those same Priests, are responsible for Jesus, being the Global household name that he has become centuries after his Crucifixion?

Jesus existed, because his history, is and will always be synonymous with Humanity, regardless of how some of the modernized non Religious individuals view Jesus through the lenses of their own non Religious rationalizations.

His morals, values, and teachings, are pro Child, pro Parents, and pro Community.

And I know this because, I've yet to see any Religious building in the United States, because Jesus and his morals, values, or teachings, were found to be harmful to any Freedom of Religious seeking individuals?

maxx

Well, perhaps you should do an in-depth study on where, how, and what the earliest manuscripts say; instead of only agreeing with what you believe and understand today @TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

Don't blame me for my opinion or perceptions in regards to Jesus, and his morals, values, or teachings?

It's the FAULT of those Priests who had Jesus Crucified to begin with, thus making Jesus a Global, and household name, that Jesus is today, true or not?
 

"Well, perhaps you should do an in-depth study on where, how, and what the earliest manuscripts say; instead of only agreeing with what you believe and understand today @TKDB"


My in-depth studies, come from going to multiple religious buildings, and the histories of Jesus, and the Bible are on full display for every parishioner to see, study, and learn from.

Vaulk

If Jesus were simply a prominent philosopher and we took the account of his life to heart minus the supernatural instances then I'd say overall he was a good philosopher.  

His word doesn't necessarily regulate his followers to pure pacifism although his example certainly does, the examples of his disciples do as well.  The exception is Jesus in the Temple:



If I had to venture a guess I'd say that Jesus was mostly stoic or "Lost in thought" for the most part.  There are few recorded instances of him displaying overt emotion.  I agree that the overall message is "The Golden Rule" but there's some interesting bits about what's in the heart of Man that cause some confusion.  David who is documented as "A Man after God's own heart" took another Man's wife for himself and then ordered her Husband be sent to the front lines of a War with the specific intent that he be killed in battle.  The underlying tone is that, despite David's wicked ways, God knew he was a good person at heart.  That actually says quite a bit and speaks against some of our societal standards we have today.

ZeusAres42

Interestingly enough this is exactly how many people of the Jewish faith view Jesus Christ @maxx

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Do you have any non Religious oriented studies, or surveys to support your individual opinion, or perception?

"Interestingly enough this is exactly how many people of the Jewish faith view Jesus Christ @maxx

Because God knows, I would appreciate seeing where you derive your mindful truths from?

@Plaffelvohfen, Where do you derive your mindful truths from as well?

Because the internet Atheist mindset grows with each passing hour doesn't it? 

maxx

one does not believe a character in a book because the character in the book says to believe in him; however the question that I posted is not what you answer. can you perhaps read it again and answer it as put?@TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

Bringing reality to your words:

You're the central character of your own opinion, perception, and words aren't you?

"one does not believe a character in a book because the character in the book says to believe in him; however the question that I posted is not what you answer. can you perhaps read it again and answer it as put?@TKDB "

Are you suggesting that I should take your words, and treat your non Religious words with some sort of a reverence?

Believing in YOUR non Religious stance is voluntary to do so isn't it?

Just as believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible, are voluntary as well right?

I can compare your word's, and the words of Jesus, in the same VOLUNTARY light, can't I?

maxx

I am saying that this is a rhetorical question. if you are not able to answer a rhetorical question, then simply do not do so.  the question has the word "assuming" to start out with and this is the basis of the debate@TKDB

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

@ZeusAres42


Bringing reality to your words as well.

You're the central character of your own opinion, perception, and words aren't you?

Haven't the two of you for some time now, been suggesting that I should take your words, and treat your non Religious words with some sort of a reverence?

Believing in your non Religious stance is voluntary to do so isn't it?

Just as believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible, are voluntary as well right?

I can compare your word's, and the words of Jesus, in the same voluntary light, can't I? 

TKDB

@maxx

You manage your words, as you wish to, just as I manage my life, outside of the framework of the very character of your own words, as I GO to church, and enjoy the peace, history, and civility of Jesus' own word's.

And you create your own internet based history, based on the very character of your individual words. 

maxx

you simply have no idea if I am religious or not.  I could care less if you believe that jesus is son pof god or not. more power too you. I just asked a debatable question which in return you refused to answer as I asked it and as well, put words into my mpouth@TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

You put your own words in your OWN mouth.

These words:

"assuming for the sake of argument that jesus actually existed, yet was not the son of god, but rather some philosopher whose miracles were just nothing more than a magician act, do you consider that his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement into your life?"

"Well, perhaps you should do an in-depth study on where, how, and what the earliest manuscripts say; instead of only agreeing with what you believe and understand today @TKDB. "

"I am saying that this is a rhetorical question. if you are not able to answer a rhetorical question, then simply do not do so.  the question has the word "assuming" to start out with and this is the basis of the debate@TKDB "

And these word's as well?

"you simply have no idea if I am religious or not.  I could care less if you believe that jesus is son pof god or not. more power too you. I just asked a debatable question which in return you refused to answer as I asked it and as well, put words into my mpouth@TKDB "

All I've done is react to your choices of word's.


And my choice of words in response to your own words:

Bringing reality to your words:

You're the central character of your own opinion, perception, and words aren't you?

"one does not believe a character in a book because the character in the book says to believe in him; however the question that I posted is not what you answer. can you perhaps read it again and answer it as put?@TKDB "

Are you suggesting that I should take your words, and treat your non Religious words with some sort of a reverence?

Believing in YOUR non Religious stance is voluntary to do so isn't it?

Just as believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible, are voluntary as well right?

I can compare your word's, and the words of Jesus, in the same VOLUNTARY light, can't I? 

maxx

again, you did not answer the question as I asked it. is that your idea of a debate??,  you are simply trolling at this point. I did not say jesus was or was not the son of god; I said assume. that is the basis of this debate. @TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

I gave you my answer/ response multiple times now, and I stand behind my response to your below question:

"assuming for the sake of argument that jesus actually existed, yet was not the son of god, but rather some philosopher whose miracles were just nothing more than a magician act, do you consider that his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement into your life?"

@maxx, you make an assumption on an argument, thus making that assumption, the ANCHOR to support your argument?

That's on you, for formulating your argument, in the manner that you chose?

And my response, remains the same response:

@maxx

Religion in general, is voluntary to engage in.

Just as being non Religious in general, is voluntary to engage in.

And I've come to realize, that some of the non Religious individual, have yet to make an appearance in ANY building, to confront, or protest any Religion based on @maxx's narratives:

        "oh jesus?"

"assuming for the sake of argument that jesus actually existed, yet was not the son of god, but rather some philosopher whose miracles were just nothing more than a magician act, do you consider that his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement into your life?"

I've yet to see any Religious minister, preacher, priest, rabbi, or what have you maybe REFER to themselves as a Magician, or a Miracle worker, so to speak? 

Or even a philosopher for that matter?

I've been to small Churches, with a congregation of 20-30 parishioners.

And I've been to a Church with 300-400 parishioners being present in Church?

And on TV, with Joel Osteen, his services, seem to draw hundreds and hundreds of parishioners to his Religious services.

And this fellow as of 2018,  his televised sermons have been seen by approximately 10 million viewers in the US and several million more in over 100 countries weekly?

So, the words like Magician, or Miracle worker, from as far as I can recall, has never been expressed in Mr. Osteen's direction, by any of the Nationwide news media.

I believe Jesus existed, because the Priests, back in his day, pushed, and succeeded in having Jesus Crucified.

So maybe if those same Priests, who were biased and prejudicial towards Jesus, didn't push to have Jesus Crucified to begin with, and just left him alone, (for doing nothing wrong in the first place,) and then they went about, "trash talking the man, in order to mock and ridicule him, and then Crucified Jesus to death, thus making Jesus's name, a Globally recognized name, because of their biased and prejudicial efforts, those same Priests, are responsible for Jesus, being the Global household name that he has become centuries after his Crucifixion?

Jesus existed, because his history, is and will always be synonymous with Humanity, regardless of how some of the modernized non Religious individuals view Jesus through the lenses of their own non Religious rationalizations.

His morals, values, and teachings, are pro Child, pro Parents, and pro Community.

And I know this because, I've yet to see any Religious building in the United States, because Jesus and his morals, values, or teachings, were found to be harmful to any Freedom of Religious seeking individuals? 

maxx

no, you did not answer my question as I asked it,  it is not about religion for one thing. my question if I have to spell it out; if jesus was simply an ordinary individual, then do you think his values and morals are worthwhile to inplement his teachings into your and your and the life of your families?  perhaps you should view the other answers if you need a guideline upon how to answer a hypothetical question@TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

Sure, why not?

Jesus values, morals, and teachings are again, pro Child, pro Family, and pro Community.

I expressed this point before as well.

"if jesus was simply an ordinary individual, then do you think his values and morals are worthwhile to implement his teachings into your and your and the life of your families?"

maxx

thanks.  now since you pointed out something in your answer; pro community; I ask where do you find than in his teachings/?  pardon my ignorance, but I thought he was against communities as a whole and told his followers to give up that type of living and follow him instead.@TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

In other word's, his values, morals, and teachings are pro Humanity.

And I don't have any issues with his teachings being pro Humanity.

Some examples:

Infanticide isn't pro Humanity.

While Adoption is pro Humanity.

Murder/ Suicide isn't pro Humanity.

The Gun Violence crimes around the globe aren't pro Humanity.

Those parents taking their kids to a Religious building, is pro Humanity.

Helping and feeding the homeless is pro Humanity.

And so on.

maxx

correct; yet one does not have to be religious to learn these values, or religious to teach these values to others.  so many Christians  seem to think that being an atheist( do not say I am one) means one does not have the same values as Christians  do. @TKDB

TKDB

@maxx

Who implied, your below statement?

"correct; yet one does not have to be religious to learn these values, or religious to teach these values to others.  so many Christians  seem to think that being an atheist( do not say I am one) means one does not have the same values as Christians  do."

ZeusAres42

However, yes, assuming Jesus did exist I do consider many of his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement.  @maxx

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

assuming for the sake of argument that jesus actually existed, yet was not the son of god, but rather some philosopher whose miracles were just nothing more than a magician act, do you consider that his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement into your life?

No.

Too many of his moral tenets are not moral at all.

I especially dislike his no divorce and substitutionary punishment policies.

That and scriptures say that he will use genocide against us when he returns.

That does not make Jesus look like a good god or man.

Regards
DL

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

of course, yet the written word can be hard to understand the emotion behind it,  turn the other cheek may have been a dare ; who knows. do unto others..@Plaffelvohfen

To turn the other cheek, is a Jewish way of insulting the one who did the hitting.

Christians have forgotten their Jewish Jesus' roots.

Regrads
DL

GnosticChristian

Vaulk said:

If Jesus were simply a prominent philosopher and we took the account of his life to heart minus the supernatural instances then I'd say overall he was a good philosopher.  



  David who is documented as "A Man after God's own heart" took another Man's wife for himself and then ordered her Husband be sent to the front lines of a War with the specific intent that he be killed in battle.  The underlying tone is that, despite David's wicked ways, God knew he was a good person at heart.  

Jesus had to show his fright when he had to run away, what, 3 times from the mobs he incited that wanted to stone him for being way too progressive for his peers.

Quite the good philosopher.

As to King David. Strange that Yahweh would show King David how good he thought he waqs by torturing his baby for 6 days before finally murdering it on the 7th day.

Quite the unconditional love, from a satanic prick of a god.
 
Regards
DL

GnosticChristian

maxx said:

no, you did not answer my question as I asked it,  it is not about religion for one thing. my question if I have to spell it out; if jesus was simply an ordinary individual, then do you think his values and morals are worthwhile to inplement his teachings into your and your and the life of your families?  perhaps you should view the other answers if you need a guideline upon how to answer a hypothetical question@TKDB

maxx

Care to comment on the content of this link?



Regards
DL

GnosticChristian

TKDB said:

@maxx

Sure, why not?

Jesus values, morals, and teachings are again, pro Child, pro Family, and pro Community.

How can Jesus' teaching be pro-family when he was anti-divorce and would have forced people, if he had the power, to live in loveless or abusive partnerships?

We know that child abuse by parents is way too common, and in those days, it would have been worse.

How could Jesus be pro-community when he said not word one against slavery?

Regards
DL 

GnosticChristian

ZeusAres42 said:

However, yes, assuming Jesus did exist I do consider many of his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement.  @maxx

Please view the link above and opine on Jesus' less than moral tenets.

I also put a post above it speaking against Jesus' no divorce and substitutional punishment policies.

Do you favor those?

Regards
DL

Neopesdom

@GnosticChristian

Are you giving lessons on how to interpret the Bible? What is the course called, "How to attack the Bible 101"?

I can already see your lesson plan. It’s quite easy, first you use subterfuge to make Scripture mean something that it does not, then you attack that deceitful view mercilessly, hoping that if you tell your lies long enough, people will start to believe you. I'll pass thanks.

If you are judging God from a purely naturalistic worldview, then you are being completely disingenuous. Of course it would be evil to take an innocent person from the world if this world was the only thing that existed. Failure to acknowledge the reality of the soul and the spiritual realm will always culminate in a twisted view of God, like the one you are falsely professing.

Scripture says that the eternal soul is more important than physical life on earth. That physical life is not the end of existence. In fact the end of physical life is not a loss, but a gain for the believer as well as the innocent. “...to depart and be with Christ, which is far better” (Phi 1:23)

It is easy to understand that an eternal, blissful life with God would have been a “far better” situation in many respects for David’s son than growing up as the illegitimate product of David’s adulterous activity, however, it would still be a better situation for his son, even if he gained the whole world.

What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? (Mark 8:36)

The righteous perish, and no one takes it to heart; the devout are taken away, and no one understands that the righteous are taken away to be spared from evil. Those who walk uprightly enter into peace; they find rest as they lie in death. (Isaiah 57:1-2)

>>How can Jesus' teaching be pro-family when he was anti-divorce and would have forced people, if he had the power, to live in loveless or abusive partnerships?

The Bible says “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.” (1 Cor. 7:3)

If either partner chooses to ignore God and his commandments they cease worship of God and worship the devil instead. This is called spiritual adultery and is grounds for divorce, a crime against your wife or husband, a sin against God.

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. (1 Cor. 7:4) It’s called mutual respect, a necessary  element of a spiritually binding marriage. 

>>How could Jesus be pro-community when he said not word one against slavery?

The Golden rule doesn’t speak against slavery? More subterfuge?

In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets. (Mat 7:12)

There are many examples and principles which speak against slavery.

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8) (Also see John 13:34, Matt. 17:12, Romans 13:10, James 2:8...)

The only thing satanic is your spiritual blindness and resulting ignorant comments.

By this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)

In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them. (2 Cor. 4:4)

If, whatever, Scripture you are trying to understand does not reflect God’s perfect Love,Justice, and Holiness, you have interpreted it all wrong!

kenpage

Sure, for the most part. The major exception would be his support for his Old Testament father, for superstition and for the evil doctrine of damnation This is profoundly contradictory to Jesus' humanist/liberal teachings. If we could purge God, the supernatural, and fear-mongering superstition from the New Testament then we'd be left with a purer lesson on love, peace and tolerance. His support for a petty, vengeful, jealous mass-murdering heavenly tyrant damages his credibility, to say the least.

GnosticChristian

Neopesdom said:

@GnosticChristian

If you are judging God from a purely naturalistic worldview, then you are being completely disingenuous. 

The Golden rule doesn’t speak against slavery? More subterfuge?

If, whatever, Scripture you are trying to understand does not reflect God’s perfect Love,Justice, and Holiness, you have interpreted it all wrong!

If you are not taking the natural view and looking at it from the supernatureal view, it is you who are disingenuous to your mind as you are asking it to go into moral and intellectual dissonance by adoring a genocidal and infanticidal moral monster of a god.

As to the Golden Rule not speaking to slavery, are you that mentally dysfunctional that you would want someone to make you a slave?

As to your Yahweh's holiness, it is more like holy garbage as he piles up his murder numbers while Satan looks quite good, when you consider Yahweh's murders.

I like that you advocate that Yahweh was correct in punishing and torturing King David's baby.

It shows just how depraved your religion has made you by corrupting your moral sense.

Regards
DL

Normal_1

"assuming for the sake of argument that jesus actually existed, yet was not the son of god, but rather some philosopher whose miracles were just nothing more than a magician act, do you consider that his morals, values, and teachings worthwhile to follow and implement into your life?"

That's a double barrel question.
There is no reason to believe that Jesus was any different from any other of his successors, for example, David Korresh or Jim Jones.

However the Jesus that the Bible so characterises through rose-tinted glasses, says some really good stuff that has stood the test of time and serves us well today.
So, we should always look at the Bible from the point of view of it being a reference book. Most of the Bible is inaccurate, anecdotal, immoral and pornographic but there are certainly more than a few good gems to be found.

Well, ok, maybe I exaggerated.....a few.....
...a couple at least.

@maxx

GnosticChristian

Normal_1 said:

However the Jesus that the Bible so characterises through rose-tinted glasses, says some really good stuff that has stood the test of time and serves us well today.

I know of nothing original in what Jesus is said to say by the scribes.

I also see a lot of immorality in the so called moral teachings of Jesus; especially his no divorce and substitutional punishment policies.

What sayings did you have in mind, other than what Gnostic Christians use?

Those are a lot better but did not get into the bible. In fact, the inquisitions tried and failed to burn all of our holy books.

Regards
DL