Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did he give us even that?
In this thread, at least.
Not in the least. He is doing what we call 'Trying it on'. (1) Pretending that the answers are in front of us if we only look. This is trying on the crafty 'It is there on the internet..go and research..' ploy of getting us to do their work for them. It is an Unkosher mix of red herring and wild goose and we should not fall for it but call on these people to do their own work, back up their own claims and provide an explanation. Not just give links or suggestions that we read jesusquotes.
I say that the jesusquotes do not solve the problem at all. So it is for Jimmie to back up his claim and explain exactly how Jesus answers the question, and we can say whether it is a good answer or not.
If it is, I will be the first to say so.
(1) as I have said before, while the case for atheism and the religion debate is pretty much done and dusted, the back to front, inside out and upside -down reasoning of theist apologists is something that I am still studying, and it fascinates me, and the crafty and dishonest methods of arguing of these people is the key to understanding what is going on, even more than grasping the issues.
Did he give us even that?
In this thread, at least.
No, but it's implicit. He is suggesting that if you "listen" to Jesus you'll hear what he's hearing. Else how would he recognize it? But of course that isn't the case. Some will hear the same or something similar, most will hear something substantively different. So his declaration is meaningless. You might as well bemoan that people don't listen to Gandalf.
The OP has the right to ignore it. And in fact, he requested that we all do. Think about it yourself instead of lazily having someone else do it. That's what the OP wants.
What you or I think about it doesn't matter, once the source (Jesus) has spoken.
Beside the point. I don't make any claims to know what he said, or even that he said anything at all. So it's not for me to elaborate on or substantiate.
My point is that no one including you actually has the slightest idea what Jesus said. He never wrote anything. All we have is documents that are not contemporaneous with his life, of uncertain authorship, that contradict each other in important ways, that are not corroborated, yet make extraordinary claims about Jesus and the implications of his life and ministry even while not providing substantiation for more prosaic claims, such as that he even existed or did even the non-miraculous things he's said to have done. And then when people read what there IS on the topic, they come up with different and often logically contradictory interpretations and teachings. Your interpretation is just one of thousands. It can be given no more weight than any other. Yet you sit here and proclaim that people aren't listening to "what Jesus said". As if there is anything objectively out there that he unambiguously said.
On this particular topic, Jesus floated a parable about the rich man and Lazarus and said a few other things about the afterlife and what influences one's role in it. These statements, ignoring whatever Paul or others said including OT references, have been interpreted to support or at least not actively undermine a host of ideas about hamartiology, eschatology, the nature of heaven and hell, punishment and whether it's eternal, doctrines concerning limbo and purgatory, and on and on. Of which YOUR ideas are just one thin slice.
There IS no "thing that Jesus said" on this or any other topic that's just "out there" and beyond question or doubt of any kind, even if you accept the scriptures as god-breathed.
What you or I think about it doesn't matter, once the source (Jesus) has spoken.
But you make no attempt to test the consistency of Christ's message by the Spirit of agape love (who IS God). You accept everything in the Bible no matter how contradictory or inconsistent with the TRUE NATURE of God and Jesus as unambiguously revealed by Jesus. Who taught you that inconsistency is acceptable? Why would Jesus or God be inconsistent with their own nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Your real issue is that people are ignoring your personal subjective interpretation of what you allege Jesus said.
Amen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
Well, by all means, give us your interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Beside the point. I don't make any claims to know what he said, or even that he said anything at all. So it's not for me to elaborate on or substantiate.
My point is that no one including you actually has the slightest idea what Jesus said. He never wrote anything. All we have is documents that are not contemporaneous with his life, of uncertain authorship, that contradict each other in important ways, that are not corroborated, yet make extraordinary claims about Jesus and the implications of his life and ministry even while not providing substantiation for more prosaic claims, such as that he even existed or did even the non-miraculous things he's said to have done. And then when people read what there IS on the topic, they come up with different and often logically contradictory interpretations and teachings. Your interpretation is just one of thousands. It can be given no more weight than any other. Yet you sit here and proclaim that people aren't listening to "what Jesus said". As if there is anything objectively out there that he unambiguously said.
On this particular topic, Jesus floated a parable about the rich man and Lazarus and said a few other things about the afterlife and what influences one's role in it. These statements, ignoring whatever Paul or others said including OT references, have been interpreted to support or at least not actively undermine a host of ideas about hamartiology, eschatology, the nature of heaven and hell, punishment and whether it's eternal, doctrines concerning limbo and purgatory, and on and on. Of which YOUR ideas are just one thin slice.
There IS no "thing that Jesus said" on this or any other topic that's just "out there" and beyond question or doubt of any kind, even if you accept the scriptures as god-breathed.
But there is an unambiguous standard in the narrative, mordant. It was epitomized by Christ by enduring the scourging and crucifixion with love for us all, including His torturers and murderers. There is no ambiguity is such an act. "No greater love . . . "
The rich man and Lazarus appears only in Luke, and that is a red flag that it is something that Like made up (1) - like a number of his famous parables which are not even hinted at by Mark or Matthew.
And of course John has not one single solitary hint of any of these parable, while the synoptics have not one single solitary mention of all the divine truths expounded in the sermons and lectures we get in John.
Thus we have a prima facie case to reject any of that as Jesus' actual words. Which makes it a bit pointless to refer us to what Jesus said, as I reckon there is not one word of the gospels that can reliably ascribed to Jesus.
So, Jimmie, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
*(1) though I have this tantalizing possible link with the raising of Lazarus which would be in the Luke chapters prior to the arrival at Jerusalem (16-19), if he had the raising of Lazarus from death - which neither he nor Mark or Matthew considered worthy of mention. Though he does have a man raised from death in Chapter 7 and that doesn't have the opportunities for a set up fake miracle that John has.
Mark and Matthew don't have the widow of Nain, so this another Luke addition. But I wonder whether Luke saw fit to take the Lazarus story and shift the raising bit to Galilee just as he does with the anointing (2) and to avoid awkward questions. That makes me suppose that the story that John and Luke used of a man (Lazarus) coming back from the dead has some other common element (other than the name). But they seem otherwise dissimilar, so I am not at all sure.
(2) (7.36-50) where it should be in chapter 20, but isn't. The absence of the anointing at Bethany whit a similar but different event in Galilee which Mark and Matthew don't have suggests strongly that Luke moved it in order to disguise it.
What you or I think about it doesn't matter, once the source (Jesus) has spoken.
Then don't post anything. Or at least share what Jesus said about it. Don't just say 'Jesus already did this' like it's obvious or even the correct answer.
What you or I think about it doesn't matter, once the source (Jesus) has spoken.
Urgh, jimmie is driving me crazy.
Quote:
Mark and Matthew don't have the widow of Nain, so this another Luke addition. But I wonder whether Luke saw fit to take the Lazarus story and shift the raising bit to Galilee just as he does with the anointing (2) and to avoid awkward questions. That makes me suppose that the story that John and Luke used of a man (Lazarus) coming back from the dead has some other common element (other than the name). But they seem otherwise dissimilar, so I am not at all sure.
AREQUIPA, read The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved. It has some interesting insight on the writer of "John" showing that the writing style (humble, unassuming) is inconsistent with the style of the actual John. In fact, they trace the appearance of this mysterious disciple to after the raising of Lazarus. With the author as John, this is an incredibly dry passage, but from the perspective of someone raised, this is suddenly significant all of the passages like how the other disciple outran the others to the tomb, and seemed to be more affected by the cloth left behind there.
Lack of consistency is acceptable, since this is a being who can appear to different people in different ways (not very acceptable but still okay). What isn't acceptable is half-assed "look at what Jesus said" with zero explanation or reference.
Quote:
And no. Anyone who sends people to be tortures forever is cruel. The argument against it is usually 'he's a just God' but endless torture is not justice. It's vile. If Hell were like a jail, you go for a short time (aren't tortured) and then you're good, I'd say God can love those people. But that's never how hell is described, so I can't see how he loves those people that he literally sentences to eternity in torment.
I have a beef both with the torture of hell, and extinction (the idea that you live your life, and whoosh nothing remains after you're gone). But likewise, the idea that violent criminals are in Heaven is equally appalling. The only solution I can think of is either reincarnation (non-biblical) or the idea that God is able to save people from Hell and/or it's a cleansing of the bad parts to refine what is left over for Heaven. A wholly evil person might be burned up completely, but I'm not sure such a thing exists.
I respect what Jesus says, usually. I'm just sick of dogma teachings, without an iota of analysis. You are fine to quote Jesus, provided you follow with "I think this means X". You are not fine to rehearse fundie dogma ("hell is real because my pastor said so") or dodge the question saying "Jesus has the answer, listen to him." Different Gospels often have contradictory views about Jesus.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 07-19-2015 at 11:29 PM..
I would suppose that perhaps the "problem" is Consciousness itself and my suspicion is that Consciousness has always ever been and that everything which has a beginning is something of a simulation (created by consciousness) for the purpose of experience and even entertainment etc.
So - say Consciousness in its quintessence state is One Thing undivided but in order to experience simulations it naturally has to fragment...
With this process then, going so deep into the Wabbit Whole the quintessence reaches a level in which all prior experience is forgotten and all consciousnesses experience in said level are 'new'. New Beings.
Thus despicable activity takes place quite naturally and just as naturally is normally not enjoyed (as if a remnant imprint of the quintessence is still embedded in the individuals experiencing such levels) and is contrary to 'life' and 'living' and harmful to real progress...
In relation to death and dying, the Astral is something of a 'make believe' realm so conceivably the nasty's might not altogether always end up being 'punished' for their despicable deeds just as some people end up in hellish circumstances who have not really been bad peoples...
I see the idea of the Astral as a 'holding zone' for individual consciousnesses which haven't 'got it' during their brief sojourn into the experience of life on earth and as such are an aspect of the Quintessence Consciousness which is essentially still lost to itself...
From all accounts, the Astral is a vast and complex 'reality' which is still largely focused on the belief that it is 'real' and there is nothing else which exists apart from it...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not in the least. He is doing what we call 'Trying it on'. (1) Pretending that the answers are in front of us if we only look. This is trying on the crafty 'It is there on the internet..go and research..' ploy of getting us to do their work for them. It is an Unkosher mix of red herring and wild goose and we should not fall for it but call on these people to do their own work, back up their own claims and provide an explanation. Not just give links or suggestions that we read jesusquotes. 
