Best way to get to know Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

Free will, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

Free will, right?

God urges people to love each other and gives them the free will to massacre each other. What's a god to do, if his creation prefers massacre over love?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

Free will, right?

God urges people to love each other and gives them the free will to massacre each other. What's a god to do, if his creation prefers massacre over love?

Send his son with a powerful message.

[Anonymous]

Washing the feet of the outcast and destitute on the fringes of society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

Free will, right?

God urges people to love each other and gives them the free will to massacre each other. What's a god to do, if his creation prefers massacre over love?

Send his son with a powerful message.

2,000 years later and people are still massacring each other. Maybe time to send another son? or try something more specific and less bloody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washing the feet of the outcast and destitute on the fringes of society?

nice gesture, but hasn't stopped the massacres

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

Free will, right?

God urges people to love each other and gives them the free will to massacre each other. What's a god to do, if his creation prefers massacre over love?

Send his son with a powerful message.

2,000 years later and people are still massacring each other. Maybe time to send another son? or try something more specific and less bloody?

Maybe. Atheism hasn't owrked in that regard either, obviously.

Not sure what you mean by "less bloody" because his son's message was anti-bloodshed in the extreme. Also, not sure what you mean by "less specific" but personally I would hate to move to a system where there are multiple specific rules that need to be enforced by a government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

I'm not religious. But if you are God, knowing that this human life is but an instant in the existence of an eternal soul, then the earthly death of individuals is not such a big deal, right? Even terrible torture is only temporary. Look at how God's own son suffered. Look at the story of Job.

I actually agree with you - it's baffling to me that people think God cares who wins a football game, but would allow the Holocaust. But to a religious person, even suffering and death have a place in God's plan, do they not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
C'mom, nobody's going to feed a troll that easily. We all know you're itching for a cue to start in with the comparisons to Santa and fairies at the bottom of the garden. However, if we weren't convinced you're a troll, we could suggest better responses. For example, a good response would be to compare biblical sources compared to the Brothers Grimm, who we know for sure are modern story tellers.

But the fundamental question is, why are you so rude in the first place? Why not make an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion? There are many possible challenges to religion that are intelligent and thoughtful. But apparently you're too lazy to do any actual thinking, beyond cheap insults.

Could you give an example of an intelligent and thoughtful challenge to religion?

Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

Free will, right?

God urges people to love each other and gives them the free will to massacre each other. What's a god to do, if his creation prefers massacre over love?

Send his son with a powerful message.

2,000 years later and people are still massacring each other. Maybe time to send another son? or try something more specific and less bloody?

Maybe. Atheism hasn't owrked in that regard either, obviously.

Not sure what you mean by "less bloody" because his son's message was anti-bloodshed in the extreme. Also, not sure what you mean by "less specific" but personally I would hate to move to a system where there are multiple specific rules that need to be enforced by a government.

Atheism is not a belief system -- it only mean lack of theism.

Regarding bloody, I was referring to the terrible bloody death of Jesus himself and how his father set him up for that, with shedding his blood for us as the only way to save humans from everlasting damnation. Then there's all the blood that has been shed since then in the name of Christianity --- the Crusades, for instance. I know there have been wars declared by countries that are not religious, but they do it to satisfy their earthly desire for power. The Crusades were fought for the glory of God, to take the holy land from the infidels.

Regarding "more specific," I meant a message that more people would understand better and know how to react to properly. People seem to have many different interpretations of what God wants and expects from us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washing the feet of the outcast and destitute on the fringes of society?

nice gesture, but hasn't stopped the massacres

Those stop when you die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Atheism is not a belief system -- it only mean lack of theism.

I wasn't suggesting atheism is a belief system - only that you were trying to pin all the world's ills on theism, and you were incorrect in that.

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding bloody, I was referring to the terrible bloody death of Jesus himself and how his father set him up for that, with shedding his blood for us as the only way to save humans from everlasting damnation. Then there's all the blood that has been shed since then in the name of Christianity --- the Crusades, for instance. I know there have been wars declared by countries that are not religious, but they do it to satisfy their earthly desire for power. The Crusades were fought for the glory of God, to take the holy land from the infidels.

The NT is explicitely against wars for land, riches or power (render unto Ceasar, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, et cetera). You asked for "specific" instructions from God, and these are very specific.

People want to kill each other for land, riches and power. To justify their wars, they will use religion or a political ideology (going back to my point about "lack of theism, as you put it, being no panacea). Yes, people have free will, and often people suck. Doesn't mean the instructions were bad, though.

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding "more specific," I meant a message that more people would understand better and know how to react to properly. People seem to have many different interpretations of what God wants and expects from us.

To me, "turn the other cheek," "love your enemy," "don't kill," "render unto Caesar" and the like are very specific and also have the benefit of being universal and timeless. God gave us free will and intelligence so that we can work these out.

It sounds a little like you're asking for a God who gives instructions and then forces people to obey. Sort of like, God should create robots that will only do what he wants, probably with a big emphasis on worshipping him all the time and without question (no atheists here!). I see little value in an arrangement or belief system that (a) turns us into mindless worshippers, (b) is so specific that it is rooted in the values of a specific time period (for example, Jesus didn't talk about LGBT, and that's a great thing for many churches today that would like to welcome gays).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sure. Here's just one. Ask why a loving God would allow one people to massacre another. (But not on this thread, because, really. Start your own thread.)

Then, actually listen to the answer. I suspect that for you, listening is going to be even harder than cutting and pasting the question above.

I'm not religious. But if you are God, knowing that this human life is but an instant in the existence of an eternal soul, then the earthly death of individuals is not such a big deal, right? Even terrible torture is only temporary. Look at how God's own son suffered. Look at the story of Job.

I actually agree with you - it's baffling to me that people think God cares who wins a football game, but would allow the Holocaust. But to a religious person, even suffering and death have a place in God's plan, do they not?

You're talking to me, the 1st PP above, and a believer. Yes, you're on the right track, I think. We don't know God's will, obviously, but we can try to understand his perspective on suffering and the relative value of winning the football game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Atheism is not a belief system -- it only mean lack of theism.

I wasn't suggesting atheism is a belief system - only that you were trying to pin all the world's ills on theism, and you were incorrect in that.

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding bloody, I was referring to the terrible bloody death of Jesus himself and how his father set him up for that, with shedding his blood for us as the only way to save humans from everlasting damnation. Then there's all the blood that has been shed since then in the name of Christianity --- the Crusades, for instance. I know there have been wars declared by countries that are not religious, but they do it to satisfy their earthly desire for power. The Crusades were fought for the glory of God, to take the holy land from the infidels.

The NT is explicitely against wars for land, riches or power (render unto Ceasar, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, et cetera). You asked for "specific" instructions from God, and these are very specific.

People want to kill each other for land, riches and power. To justify their wars, they will use religion or a political ideology (going back to my point about "lack of theism, as you put it, being no panacea). Yes, people have free will, and often people suck. Doesn't mean the instructions were bad, though.

Anonymous wrote:
Regarding "more specific," I meant a message that more people would understand better and know how to react to properly. People seem to have many different interpretations of what God wants and expects from us.

To me, "turn the other cheek," "love your enemy," "don't kill," "render unto Caesar" and the like are very specific and also have the benefit of being universal and timeless. God gave us free will and intelligence so that we can work these out.

It sounds a little like you're asking for a God who gives instructions and then forces people to obey. Sort of like, God should create robots that will only do what he wants, probably with a big emphasis on worshipping him all the time and without question (no atheists here!). I see little value in an arrangement or belief system that (a) turns us into mindless worshippers, (b) is so specific that it is rooted in the values of a specific time period (for example, Jesus didn't talk about LGBT, and that's a great thing for many churches today that would like to welcome gays).

I'm not asking for a god at all, but given that some people believe in a good god who loves them, seems like that god could give a more clear understanding of what he thinks makes a good that all his beloved creations can understand. People have an easier time getting around in the metro than they do understanding what god wants from them -- which can be pretty important,because if you get it wrong, God, who loves you, can send you to hell for eternity. Some christians don't believe it, but others do and it causes a great deal of anxiety for them, which God apparently doesn't care about or can't control, or something.

What about the blood issue raised earlier? God sending his only son to be brutally murdered. What about those hymns about being bathed in the blood of the lamb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not asking for a god at all, but given that some people believe in a good god who loves them, seems like that god could give a more clear understanding of what he thinks makes a good that all his beloved creations can understand. People have an easier time getting around in the metro than they do understanding what god wants from them -- which can be pretty important,because if you get it wrong, God, who loves you, can send you to hell for eternity. Some christians don't believe it, but others do and it causes a great deal of anxiety for them, which God apparently doesn't care about or can't control, or something.

What about the blood issue raised earlier? God sending his only son to be brutally murdered. What about those hymns about being bathed in the blood of the lamb?

Nobody thinks you're asking for a god, don't take that literally.

To me, basic commandments about love and pacifism are appropriate and sufficient. I don't understand what you're asking for here. Do you want a Holy Book or prophet who gives instructions along the lines of, when terrorists bomb NYC, you should respond with love not hate, and you should do this by the specific actions of, I dunno, NOT attacking Iraq but instead providing more international aid? Because instructions that are so very specific are not going to be timeless, in the sense that they are useful for a full 2,000 years.

I agree that politicians and others are always arguing about what God wants. I think the left has the truer reading of the NT, and that the people arguing "God wants tax cuts" are self-serving. But again, I don't understand, are you arguing that God should smite the people on the wrong side?

The blood issue - actually, crucifixion is more about asphyxiation than about blood. But that's not the point. The point is that God was incarnated in human form, and humans suffer, and he shared in our suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not asking for a god at all, but given that some people believe in a good god who loves them, seems like that god could give a more clear understanding of what he thinks makes a good that all his beloved creations can understand. People have an easier time getting around in the metro than they do understanding what god wants from them -- which can be pretty important,because if you get it wrong, God, who loves you, can send you to hell for eternity. Some christians don't believe it, but others do and it causes a great deal of anxiety for them, which God apparently doesn't care about or can't control, or something.

What about the blood issue raised earlier? God sending his only son to be brutally murdered. What about those hymns about being bathed in the blood of the lamb?

Nobody thinks you're asking for a god, don't take that literally.

To me, basic commandments about love and pacifism are appropriate and sufficient. I don't understand what you're asking for here. Do you want a Holy Book or prophet who gives instructions along the lines of, when terrorists bomb NYC, you should respond with love not hate, and you should do this by the specific actions of, I dunno, NOT attacking Iraq but instead providing more international aid? Because instructions that are so very specific are not going to be timeless, in the sense that they are useful for a full 2,000 years.

I agree that politicians and others are always arguing about what God wants. I think the left has the truer reading of the NT, and that the people arguing "God wants tax cuts" are self-serving. But again, I don't understand, are you arguing that God should smite the people on the wrong side?

The blood issue - actually, crucifixion is more about asphyxiation than about blood. But that's not the point. The point is that God was incarnated in human form, and humans suffer, and he shared in our suffering.

Got it - you're avoiding the blood issue. Do a little reading and you'll probably be be able to rationalize it - to yourself at least.

PS many humans don't suffer the way Christ supposedly did, and some suffer much worse - but they're not the son of god so they just die -- and if they're not Christian, they just go to hell - according to Christans'.

Plus he didn't just share our suffering --he died for our sins and we're supposed to be ever grateful.