Spade
Did not Jesus say that we would be at God’s table – Sure it is not empty and alcohol is not banned – Gotta like that
Who can really argue with the basic philosophy if you are not Christian, of Jesus –
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Spade
Did not Jesus say that we would be at God’s table – Sure it is not empty and alcohol is not banned – Gotta like that
Machjo
A question – As mentioned below many believe that this and I am one was the start of the separation of Church from State –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...
Render unto Caesar…" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels which reads in full, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”) (Matthew 22:21).
This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority
I do not know of an equivalent that is in the Koran – Yes I do know that Jesus is in the Koran but I am not all that familiar with it to know one way or the other.
Booze without the blinders (blinding headaches for the toatlers), sounds like heaven!
I don't like your poll Goober. I will say that a person should have an insight into all the points of view before they even deside their own, otherwise it is an uninformed decision. This is the main reason I do not agree with the hardline religions that agree to pre-arranged marriages or the child brides. They seem to be more of a cult to me because they are restricting the people frre choice the weigh all the alternatives and do what they feel is right for them.
I disagree with asceticism, so I disagree with what I believe to be Jesus's basic teachings. I don't think the path to happiness is to give up all my possessions. Since no one really agrees on what the main message of the new testament is, I believe the question to be ill posed. I do like his anti-establishment attitude.
I don't really understand the poll... so i abstain.
I don't really understand the poll... so i abstain.
I agree to Jesus apostle-hood: he was an apostle of God; he was son of man, not son of God. Jesus preached the First Commandment that God is One, and to love God with all heart, mind, and power.
There are two levels of his teachings:
To his disciples he gave them some higher level of ideology, while to people in general he gave them the basic instruction and teachings; and that is according to the level of understanding and the level of piety and religion. His marvelous parables have many levels of depth in meaning.
In situations where man has to choose between the money and God; he has to choose God: To people in general, he might not say: Offer all your wealth; but in selected cases, he said this to some of his disciples like Peter and his brother, and two others among his disciples, and to a rich man who wanted to have Paradise in the afterlife, while he coveted the money.
As in the Quran 47: 36-37
إِنَّمَا الحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا لَعِبٌ وَلَهْوٌ وَإِن تُؤْمِنُوا وَتَتَّقُوا يُؤْتِكُمْ أُجُورَكُمْ وَلَا يَسْأَلْكُمْ أَمْوَالَكُمْ . إِن يَسْأَلْكُمُوهَا فَيُحْفِكُمْ تَبْخَلُوا وَيُخْرِجْ أَضْغَانَكُمْ
The explanation:
(The life of [this] World is nothing more than a play and a pastime;
and if you believe and ward off [God's disobedience], He [will] grant you your recompense [in the Hereafter] and demand not of you [to pay all] your possessions [but only a portion of that.]
(The life of [this] World is nothing more than a play and a pastime;
and if you believe and ward off [God's disobedience], He [will] grant you your recompense [in the Hereafter] and demand not of you [to pay all] your possessions [but only a portion of that.]
If He asks you for [all] your possessions, and presses you, you are niggardly, and that [will] bring to light all your rancor.)
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, there has been much of enthusiasm about Jesus Christ, to the extent that some considered him God Himself, or the son of God, or part of a Trinity. To this I disagree.
But some of his teachings have been misunderstood: like the circumcision; he did not forbid it, but said there are many things more important like the purification of the heart.
I disagree also about the idea of the redemption or intercession; it has been misunderstood: Jesus like the rest of God's apostles, invited people to God alone; so whoso of them obeys and converts –– he in fact would obey God's commands and so he will be saved.
While the one that opposes, contradicts and disbelieves Jesus and other prophets –– in fact he would disobey God's commandment, and so he could not be saved neither by Jesus nor by any other apostle.
And as has Niflmir said: "I don't really understand the poll... so I abstain."
Last edited:
As it is still doubtful that said "jesus" even existed, whoever the people were that were responsible for the telling of Jesus' tale, had a noticeable impact on philosophy. These people made significant contributions to such topics as forgiveness, epistemology, self-understanding, and the meaning of life.
BTW, I voted "I don't care". The messenger is not nearly as important as the message.
BTW, I voted "I don't care". The messenger is not nearly as important as the message.
Theology isn't philosophy and they shouldn't be confused. Jesus had a theology not a philosophy.
Jesus (had he been an actual person) plagiarized his theology anyway.
Jesus (had he been an actual person) plagiarized his theology anyway.
Excuse me, but it would depend upon what you define philosophy as. Princeton U. says theology is "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth" whereas philosophy has been defined as the "love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline". At the least, the two can overlap.
To me wading into these discussions is like stepping in quicksand, you're stuck and go nowhere. But ayway, Most atheists I know too know more about the bible, but most I know were also bought up in church going families. Others were searching for something and didn't find it. The former are like my late mother-in-law, who eve tought catechism)who realised the church was preaching its own agenda, ( I single out the Catholic Shurch only because its the biggest). She travelled extensively in South America and saw the extreme wealth of the church amongst the abject poverty of the people. Without faith and understanding that could have converted Job. Many mainstream, (and all cult like) churches are more businesses than houses of worship.
The latter can be those who are looking for an argument to support their beliefs, (but arguments for both sides can be found there). Others may be looking for answers and not finding them, if all a person is doing is looking at the words without looking at context and the zeitgeist of that particular period, and having some faith, all they will find are words.
Except Spade wasn't talking about "many" Christians. He was talking about "most". I seriously doubt he knows most Christians or what is in their heart.
I don't believe Jesus was teaching asceticism per se, though I can't quote chapter and verse because I loaned my bible to my daughter, you may remember the part were a man asks Jesus what he needs to do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and is told to give up all his posessions an follow him, "for it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven". The man protests that he is a merchant but he also want to follow a righteous path but is fearful he won't be worthy, and Jesus reassures him "that with God all things are possible".
It is not a sin to toil for a living or to enjoy the fruits of your labours, sin lies in the lust for riches and the coveting of others' posessions, cheating and greed, among other things.
Remember too that the books of the Bible are written for and directed to certain groups or societies in the context and zeitgeist specific to them at that time. There may appear to be contradictions, just as there may appear to be contradictions in political speeches given to the French and English in this country, (but that's a different story).
I may add: I absolutely agree with the basic original philosophy of Jesus himself; i.e. his true teachings, but not that included in the available gospels, which I think he is quit of them: like the son of God or that he is God Himself, or that he is one part of a Trinity, or the redemption as is it alleged in the available gospels.
And therefore, I cannot vote; because the original teachings I agree about; while about what is ascribed to him of the enthusiasm and association I disagree.
And therefore, I cannot vote; because the original teachings I agree about; while about what is ascribed to him of the enthusiasm and association I disagree.
No they can't.
Confused people can get them mixed up. If that's what you mean by overlapping then I'll agree.
Jesus might say "turn the other cheek" but he can't tell you why except that god told him and that he thinks that's "good." That just isn't a philosophy - it is theology.
Whereas if Wittgenstein told you to turn the other cheek he could explain exactly why without any appeals to authority using only logic - that's philosophy.
Last edited:
How can you pick one part to agree with and another to disagree with!?!?!?! What the hell would you use as a basis - oh don't tell me - that paedophile told you all this crap :roll:
Good point. So you think that this "Jesus" was just a robot regurgitating some god's wishes without having thought and chatted about the wherefore and whys? That's pretty presumptuous, IMO. I bet it happens a lot even to this day that people just reiterate what they learn from another source without thinking or chatting about it. lol Eannasir is a good example.
Speaking of whom, I think he's missed a few of Jesus' philosophical and theological points. Adds to the entertainment of this thread, though. lol
..and if he can tell you why without god then it is philosophy. Since none of us were there, it's pretty hard to determine how Jesus said it.
Lots of Christians don't accept the Bible as "THE" word of God and leave it open to interpretation.
Well it would be except Jesus didn't bring anything new. He brought pagan teachings and beliefs to the Jews; for example, Mithra taught that people should be like the ox and when someone beats them to let them; which is the same sentiment as turn the other cheek. All of the Jesus teachings are like that. The early Christians were actually rebels against Rome; which entirely changes the meaning of all those "Christians being fed to lions" stories. Being a Christian only meant that you didn't want the emperor's statue in your temple, which was the law. Christian was a title not a follower of Jesus. Today people confuse Christian with a follower of Jesus (well its true today but originally it wasn't). Then there are the early believers who were adoptionist and gnostic and so forth; all very pagan. Constantine really confused the issue by making the bible by committee. He seems to have amalgamated a bunch of religions into one. At that time there were more churches to Simon than Jesus but they are all gone now as are his teachings. It isn't too hard to think they are now part of "Christianity" too. It's even difficult to know who came first. It's likely IMO that Jesus was entirely made up from several religions. The early "Christians" were probably followers of Simon, John the Baptist, Mithra, Apollonius, etc and others who didn't want to worship the emperor as a god.
Last edited:
That's right - without the appeal to authority fallacy.
There are many good books on the topic and a surprising amount of history. This is news to most Christians who read only the Bible.