Reply
Sun 13 May, 2007 10:33 am
I have answers.. if any of you have questions regarding the reason Jesus stands out from Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Bahu'llah, etc. Just ask..
Sorry thought you meant the chap Setanta refers to Hey-Zeus. Ok carry on.
Personally, I believe in none of the above. I have no questions and my life is fine without them or the concept of those characters.
Ragman wrote:Personally, I believe in none of the above. I have no questions and my life is fine without them or the concept of those characters.
It cant be its against the law
Re: Why is Jesus Christ the Truth?
dramakazi wrote:I have answers.. if any of you have questions regarding the reason Jesus stands out from Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Bahu'llah, etc. Just ask..
As far as I am concerned, the world would be a better place if Jesus had not had the notoriety that he did. From what I know, he was probably a great guy, who was an excellent teacher, in his day. Somehow, he "caught on" with the public, who blew up his persona way out of proportion. There has been so much ill that has been done in that man's name over the years. I think that if he knew what his cult of personality had wrought over time, he would be horrified!
I know! I know! It's 'cause the Bible said so. Case closed.
there is a certain amount of speculation on your behalf there Pheonix
i'm actual;ly interested in what you have to say. how does Jesus stand out from the other deities?
Conversely please tell me how he is the same as the other deities.
Phoenix...that's something I've wondered about.
What made this Jesus guy catch on more than someone else?
I know there was some grudge match for a while between the popularity of John the B, and JC, but where was the swing vote?
Re: Why is Jesus Christ the Truth?
Phoenix32890 wrote:dramakazi wrote:I have answers.. if any of you have questions regarding the reason Jesus stands out from Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Bahu'llah, etc. Just ask..
As far as I am concerned, the world would be a better place if Jesus had not had the notoriety that he did. From what I know, he was probably a great guy, who was an excellent teacher, in his day. Somehow, he "caught on" with the public, who blew up his persona way out of proportion. There has been so much ill that has been done in that man's name over the years. I think that if he knew what his cult of personality had wrought over time, he would be horrified!
I do believe that it would take longer for civilised society to be established without some sort of religion to force people to behave (i.e. hell). But now that we have established a (sort of) functioning society I'll say good riddance whenever we move past that whole religion ordeal.
I have never accepted the dodge that society (individuals in the aggregate) nor the individual came become sufficiently amenable to compromise and negotiation without benefit of religion. K'ung-fu-tzu (Confucius) offered a very detailed, comprehensive picture of how one may live peacably within society without the least reference to religious dogma, and in fact, his was not even a system of behavior based upon a set of moral or ethical imperatives. It was, rather, something rather alien to European prejudices, a system of exemplification. If you believe in charity, that belief is meaningless unless you are yourself charitable in your actions.
Many, many societies have existed in which there were no moral precepts inherent in their religious beliefs (c.f., Classical Greek and Roman Republican Imperial society), or in which whatever religious beliefs may have obtained, they did not govern society (ancient pre-Christian German and Keltic tribes).
It is only a conceit of the Judeo-Christian tradition that men and women cannot have a moral compass, or an ethical system of behavior, without "the fear of God."
Those who believe what is written about Jesus in the bible would most likely agree that he is the only one ever to have kept the entire Jewish Law. This would make him the only one qualified to be the messiah. Was that what you were trying to say, drama?
BTW, welcome to A2k.
Setanta wrote:I have never accepted the dodge that society (individuals in the aggregate) nor the individual came become sufficiently amenable to compromise and negotiation without benefit of religion. K'ung-fu-tzu (Confucius) offered a very detailed, comprehensive picture of how one may live peacably within society without the least reference to religious dogma, and in fact, his was not even a system of behavior based upon a set of moral or ethical imperatives. It was, rather, something rather alien to European prejudices, a system of exemplification. If you believe in charity, that belief is meaningless unless you are yourself charitable in your actions.
Many, many societies have existed in which there were no moral precepts inherent in their religious beliefs (c.f., Classical Greek and Roman Republican Imperial society), or in which whatever religious beliefs may have obtained, they did not govern society (ancient pre-Christian German and Keltic tribes).
It is only a conceit of the Judeo-Christian tradition that men and women cannot have a moral compass, or an ethical system of behavior, without "the fear of God."
Of the tradition, yes, but not of the scriptures. Paul explains this in Romans 2:14,15.
Re: Why is Jesus Christ the Truth?
dramakazi wrote:I have answers.. if any of you have questions regarding the reason Jesus stands out from Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Bahu'llah, etc. Just ask..
I've heard of Christians being fed to the lions, but never of Christians feeding
themselves to the lions.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another . . .
Although i know, Neo, that you think this makes your point, in fact, it makes my point. Obviously, the "gentiles" referred to were "moral" without reference to the "law." Apart from having no particular reason to see the Mosaic law as embodying moral or ethical excellence, i don't see that this passage--which is not a reference to anything your boy Hey-Zeus was even alleged to have said--provides evidence that scripture provides a moral compass without which scripture, said compass would be lacking. It says quite the opposite in fact.
Religion never made a bad man good, and the want of religion never made a good man bad.
Setanta wrote:For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another . . .
Although i know, Neo, that you think this makes your point, in fact, it makes my point. Obviously, the "gentiles" referred to were "moral" without reference to the "law." Apart from having no particular reason to see the Mosaic law as embodying moral or ethical excellence, i don't see that this passage--which is not a reference to anything your boy Hey-Zeus was even alleged to have said--provides evidence that scripture provides a moral compass without which scripture, said compass would be lacking. It says quite the opposite in fact.
Religion never made a bad man good, and the want of religion never made a good man bad.
Yeah, but that's what I said.
OK, now i understand. I misunderestimagated your meaning. You were saying that that was a conceit of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but that it was not a conceit of the scripture.
Carry on . . .
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace