Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-DM- · 02-15-2002, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
From a non believers point of view your questions may be good but a believer should know what I mean and would accept by faith that the laws were given to Moses and that the cross of eternal salvation is for sinners, etc.

Ah yes, faith. Faith is not a reliable path to truth. There is no belief that cannot be held on the basis of faith. Faith is a kind of intellectual lobotomy -- which explains much about your posts.

--Don--

[Corrected typo. --Don--

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]

HelenM · 02-15-2002, 09:45 PM

Jesus' sinlessness is an axiom of Christianity - as it were - and is mentioned in some Bible verses such as the ones excreationist quoted.

IOW Christians believe Jesus is sinless and view all his behavior (as described in the canonical gospels) in light of that. Rather than trying to 'prove' his sinlessness from his actions.

Biblically, sinlessness is better defined as always doing what pleases God, out of a desire to please Him, than by a list of dos or don'ts.

Realistic non-Christians will admit, I hope, that any sensible system of ethics is not just a list of dos and don'ts - to the extent there are rules they always have disclaimers, exceptions, qualifiers.

So, if Jesus saw the Jewish Law this way, I don't think that makes him a lawbreaker so much as an enlightened law observer who used his brain to think what was really behind each part of the law. To be reasonable about when exceptions would be permitted. Instead of being inanely legalistic, which is how the canonical gospels portray the Jewish religious leaders of his day.

Gospels which seem to describe what would be sinful behavior on anyone's part, including Jesus, thus show themselves to be untrue, according to the axiom that Jesus was (is) sinless

.

Christianity has a lot of 'axioms', in fact. Such as: Jesus is sinless, Christians are counted as sinless because of Jesus (as far as eternal destinies are concerned; sin after conversion does count against 'rewards in heaven'), no humans apart from Jesus are sinless enough to go to heaven unless Jesus' sinlessness is imputed to them [by grace, through faith], etc.

love
Helen

RyanS2 · 02-15-2002, 10:28 PM

"Biblically, sinlessness is better defined as always doing what pleases God, out of a desire to please Him, than by a list of dos or don'ts."

Biblically speaking, the Bible is a big list of do's and do nots. (Or "Thou Shalts" and "Thou shalt not"). Granted, the "thou shalts" changed as a different person came into power, whom was later on condemend usually by his next of line. (Example: Human sacrifice). Sometimes, it was even redacted.

"So, if Jesus saw the Jewish Law this way, I don't think that makes him a lawbreaker so much as an enlightened law observer who used his brain to think what was really behind each part of the law. To be reasonable about when exceptions would be permitted. Instead of being inanely legalistic, which is how the canonical gospels portray the Jewish religious leaders of his day."

I agree fully. When we say "Lawbreaker", here in America, and I tell the judge that I don't think it was murder because the angel told me it wasn't murder, I'm sure he'll fully concure with me on that one. The point of view here is what causes the debate. Let's say that Jesus, though avowing that he came not to change the law, but to fulfill it, and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than change one little dot on the Hebrew text.

Believers will then argue that because Jesus is God, he can reinterpret the "Law", thou the Bible clearly relates that to the priestly order. Let's say, for sake of argument, that Jesus was truly this, the Son of God, and had a right to rewrite the laws, and reinterpret them.

However, the consistency argument comes from the problem that Jesus cannot only have problems with the Jewish laws, but even more perplexing, with his own laws. That's what the link supplied above is about. Even giving Jesus the ability to reinterpret at his will the laws, it would seem a divine complex to have Jesus breaking his OWN laws, immuteable supposedly. (Can the words of God change...)

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]

sidewinder · 02-16-2002, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:
On Jesus nature of sinning or not, it seems very strange to me the way he addressed his mother, calling her "Woman", an insult, when the ten commandments say, "Honor thy father and they mother".

I've read that in that time and place, it was ok to call a woman (assuming even your Mother)"woman."

Quote:

Next, while preaching piety and self-sacrifice, he has Mary buy expensive perfume for him, washing his feet of all things, and when one of the disciples gets mad because he asserts that the poor could have been fed with that, (which begs the question, why didn't he think that Jesus could just do the fish n' bread trick? Or is that because Jesus said that this generation would see no signs?) Jesus rebukes him.

The most famous incident though would be the incident in the temple, where he makes the whip.

Good question about the perfume incident. It reminds me of a line in a song by Bad Religion where they ask what stopped Jesus Christ from basically feeding everyone (since he was able to perform miracles.)

I think his actions in the Temple were considered (at least in retrospect) to be "prophetic" actions. It doesn't make sense that he overturned the moneychangers tables because they were needed for the pilgrims to exchange money. The money changing was a necessary part of the festival.

sidewinder · 02-16-2002, 02:12 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HelenSL:
Jesus' sinlessness is an axiom of Christianity - as it were - and is mentioned in some Bible verses such as the ones excreationist quoted.

IOW Christians believe Jesus is sinless and view all his behavior (as described in the canonical gospels) in light of that. Rather than trying to 'prove' his sinlessness from his actions.

Biblically, sinlessness is better defined as always doing what pleases God, out of a desire to please Him, than by a list of dos or don'ts.

Quote:

I appreciate the clarification, as far as how sin is defined Biblically.

Quote:

Realistic non-Christians will admit, I hope, that any sensible system of ethics is not just a list of dos and don'ts - to the extent there are rules they always have disclaimers, exceptions, qualifiers.

I would agree with this completely. As someone else mentioned, it seems the Bible is basically a list of do's and don'ts. And even if it's not all do's and don'ts, many Christians live by the ethics of do's and don'ts making no room for exceptions, circumstances, etc.

Quote:

So, if Jesus saw the Jewish Law this way, I don't think that makes him a lawbreaker so much as an enlightened law observer who used his brain to think what was really behind each part of the law. To be reasonable about when exceptions would be permitted. Instead of being inanely legalistic, which is how the canonical gospels portray the Jewish religious leaders of his day.

Like many in his day, as far as I understand, Jesus had his own interpretation of the Jewish Law. Some would call it enlightened and others would call it blaspehmous.

Gospels which seem to describe what would be sinful behavior on anyone's part, including Jesus, thus show themselves to be untrue, according to the axiom that Jesus was (is) sinless

.

Christianity has a lot of 'axioms', in fact. Such as: Jesus is sinless, Christians are counted as sinless because of Jesus (as far as eternal destinies are concerned; sin after conversion does count against 'rewards in heaven'), no humans apart from Jesus are sinless enough to go to heaven unless Jesus' sinlessness is imputed to them [by grace, through faith], etc.

love
Helen[/QB]

Well, now we get into Christian doctrine (Christians are counted by their God as sinless because of Jesus, etc.)and that was created by the early Christian community, largely Paul. It was created after Jesus died. I would ask if Jesus saw his death this way and as I mentioned in another post, it's very unlikely that he saw his death as dying for the sins of mankind.

02-16-2002, 09:59 AM

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Helen why don't you take the mental leap and let go of religious indoctrination. Jesus was a Jew and set free from the Law and slavery of sin.

His "mother" was not his physical birth mother but his spiritual rebirth Mother.

etc.

Amos

Paradisedreams2 · 02-16-2002, 05:43 PM

His "mother" was not his physical birth mother but his spiritual rebirth Mother.

Amos I'm begining to see this very point here. I mean I've seen it before but I see it again in the a different way. God promised David that His son would have this "kingdom". But Davids son died after seven days. "From His bowels God would raise up Son". So Jesus would have been dead FIRST in order to "Arise" before even begining his ministry. He did not say, "I WILL BE the Ressurection" But I AM the Ressurection. I'm rambling off thoughts and going no where here but the spiritual nature of the similitude of Mary is RIGHT ON!! His rebirth! Thanks

I got to look into this because theres more there then I'm getting.

02-16-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paradisedreams2:
[QBI got to look into this because theres more there then I'm getting.

[/QB]

Be carefull because there is a lot more but to be from the line of David Jesus must be the reborn Joseph to whom the Christ identity was imparted through rebirth and was therefore called Jesus.

A crucial concept is that Mary was woman (now personified) and taken from man in Gen.2 without first having been created in Gen.1 and therefore without body other than the seat of wisdom (found the TOL desirable for gaining wisdom in Gen.3:6). Woman is the subconscious mind, you can say, and when Joseph (the ambitious carpenter of the conscious mind) had been exhausted ("beyond theology" Alan Watts) the subconscious mind gave [re]birth to the firstborn identity that had been subdued by the faculty of reason ever since the persona (mask) had become formed.

In the end, this means that you and I can be brothers of Jesus and become God as in "my Lord and my God." No big deal but true nonetheless.

Paradisedreams2 · 02-16-2002, 08:55 PM

Amos,
That was really interesting! Kind of reminds me of Carl Jung with a pinch of John Sandford.
You know I use to look into the "internal workings" or pyscology veiws and was really impressed with it at that time. I still waver a bit on "the meaning of life" and these things really filled that void. I guess I'm off on to the "mechanics" of the whole thing... Don't know where I'm going really

Inspire me for a second. I don't understand Aithiests yet I regard them as particularly courageous to "leave" (if they were ever believers) the belief in a God. Not at all saying that their walking away means anything detrimental from my particular veiw point.

I don't dabble in ritual myself (I even abhor it)I don't celebrate days, go to church, desire sermons, or pretend to be anything I'm not (except role playing with my hubby)

I find none of the joys other christians might find in the structured organized type church setting. Praying was something I use to do way back but it was not satifying in the least. But I do pray (communicate) in my heart not outloud or many words and I'm always amazed when "things begin to happen" (syncronicity? maybe) By "things" I find I'm drawn to certain things without reason why but begin finding out later. Then "poof" after three months everything receeds and everything in my life is quite and quite back to normal (including abnormalities too).

In these times I begin to question, "where is this awesome feeling that I had, filled with beauty, truth, and life giving power"? I felt like every thought coming in was so "revelatory". To live without the kind of inspiration I have known would be to rip everything I find beautiful in this world. I don't get from other people what I need to feel alive. Whatever (whoever) inside me causes me to write a song or a poem to feel all the things I suppose you might find "funny" or explainable by way of science (I'm unsure because I'm learning how you think).

How does one chuck it all when you've known something in you this awesome? How do you face life knowing you'll hit the dirt (in your own thinking) never to see those who mean the very most to you? Even if it was an illusion (for sake of argument) isn't it more beautiful to be in a state of inspiration? I guess I'm not putting this right, I'm tired but I wanted to write you.

I'm not saying, "believe" you either do or you don't.

I guess I'm lost on the understanding of that personal choice.

No doubt I would have a beef with christians (I do now I understand what you go through I really do) They can drive any good man to murder. Is your lack of faith (or unbelief) based on anything particular? I guess you must have answered that question a million times belonging to a board such as this but I don't know too much about each of you.

Was it the physical evidence, or books, verses tampered with (Old,gospels, epistles?), or the way christians treated you or because of the study of myths and dreams? All of the above I'm clueless.

I told someone I was reading Einstein I just love the book on his opinions and letters. He's a scientist, I thought maybe he did not have any type of faith either (perhaps not it didn't say one way or the other) But it is enough for me to see it in someone who does not profess. Reading Einsteins letters were really inspiring, I enjoyed him alot.

Do you ever get inspired? Is it possible to get inspired at all just knowing you believe in nothing except science? I myself knew absolutely nothing about what is was like to be inspired before I became a christian so I make that association only because its the only experience from where I can draw a begining of this experience.

I could ask you a billion questions and fill up this thread with nonsense but I thought I'd ask you how this came about for you.

HelenM · 02-17-2002, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewinder:
Well, now we get into Christian doctrine (Christians are counted by their God as sinless because of Jesus, etc.)and that was created by the early Christian community, largely Paul. It was created after Jesus died. I would ask if Jesus saw his death this way and as I mentioned in another post, it's very unlikely that he saw his death as dying for the sins of mankind.

I'm going to a course about Jesus that asks those questions. It seems that those who don't believe Jesus is God agree with you and those who do believe he is, don't...if you see what I mean

.

So where you start has a lot to do with where you end up...as people look at texts that are centuries old and speculate about how 'creative' the authors were.

Amos I do believe I make a lot of mental leaps but I'm not sure I know of one which takes me where you are

love
Helen

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

02-15-2002, 10:28 PM	#23
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	"Biblically, sinlessness is better defined as always doing what pleases God, out of a desire to please Him, than by a list of dos or don'ts." Biblically speaking, the Bible is a big list of do's and do nots. (Or "Thou Shalts" and "Thou shalt not"). Granted, the "thou shalts" changed as a different person came into power, whom was later on condemend usually by his next of line. (Example: Human sacrifice). Sometimes, it was even redacted. "So, if Jesus saw the Jewish Law this way, I don't think that makes him a lawbreaker so much as an enlightened law observer who used his brain to think what was really behind each part of the law. To be reasonable about when exceptions would be permitted. Instead of being inanely legalistic, which is how the canonical gospels portray the Jewish religious leaders of his day." I agree fully. When we say "Lawbreaker", here in America, and I tell the judge that I don't think it was murder because the angel told me it wasn't murder, I'm sure he'll fully concure with me on that one. The point of view here is what causes the debate. Let's say that Jesus, though avowing that he came not to change the law, but to fulfill it, and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than change one little dot on the Hebrew text. Believers will then argue that because Jesus is God, he can reinterpret the "Law", thou the Bible clearly relates that to the priestly order. Let's say, for sake of argument, that Jesus was truly this, the Son of God, and had a right to rewrite the laws, and reinterpret them. However, the consistency argument comes from the problem that Jesus cannot only have problems with the Jewish laws, but even more perplexing, with his own laws. That's what the link supplied above is about. Even giving Jesus the ability to reinterpret at his will the laws, it would seem a divine complex to have Jesus breaking his OWN laws, immuteable supposedly. (Can the words of God change...) [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-15-2002, 09:45 PM	#22
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Jesus' sinlessness is an axiom of Christianity - as it were - and is mentioned in some Bible verses such as the ones excreationist quoted. IOW Christians believe Jesus is sinless and view all his behavior (as described in the canonical gospels) in light of that. Rather than trying to 'prove' his sinlessness from his actions. Biblically, sinlessness is better defined as always doing what pleases God, out of a desire to please Him, than by a list of dos or don'ts. Realistic non-Christians will admit, I hope, that any sensible system of ethics is not just a list of dos and don'ts - to the extent there are rules they always have disclaimers, exceptions, qualifiers. So, if Jesus saw the Jewish Law this way, I don't think that makes him a lawbreaker so much as an enlightened law observer who used his brain to think what was really behind each part of the law. To be reasonable about when exceptions would be permitted. Instead of being inanely legalistic, which is how the canonical gospels portray the Jewish religious leaders of his day. Gospels which seem to describe what would be sinful behavior on anyone's part, including Jesus, thus show themselves to be untrue, according to the axiom that Jesus was (is) sinless . Christianity has a lot of 'axioms', in fact. Such as: Jesus is sinless, Christians are counted as sinless because of Jesus (as far as eternal destinies are concerned; sin after conversion does count against 'rewards in heaven'), no humans apart from Jesus are sinless enough to go to heaven unless Jesus' sinlessness is imputed to them [by grace, through faith], etc. love Helen

02-16-2002, 09:59 AM	#26
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	[/QB][/QUOTE] Helen why don't you take the mental leap and let go of religious indoctrination. Jesus was a Jew and set free from the Law and slavery of sin. His "mother" was not his physical birth mother but his spiritual rebirth Mother. etc. Amos

02-16-2002, 05:43 PM	#27
Paradisedreams2 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pa Posts: 113	His "mother" was not his physical birth mother but his spiritual rebirth Mother. Amos I'm begining to see this very point here. I mean I've seen it before but I see it again in the a different way. God promised David that His son would have this "kingdom". But Davids son died after seven days. "From His bowels God would raise up Son". So Jesus would have been dead FIRST in order to "Arise" before even begining his ministry. He did not say, "I WILL BE the Ressurection" But I AM the Ressurection. I'm rambling off thoughts and going no where here but the spiritual nature of the similitude of Mary is RIGHT ON!! His rebirth! Thanks I got to look into this because theres more there then I'm getting.

02-16-2002, 08:55 PM	#29
Paradisedreams2 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pa Posts: 113	Amos, That was really interesting! Kind of reminds me of Carl Jung with a pinch of John Sandford. You know I use to look into the "internal workings" or pyscology veiws and was really impressed with it at that time. I still waver a bit on "the meaning of life" and these things really filled that void. I guess I'm off on to the "mechanics" of the whole thing... Don't know where I'm going really Inspire me for a second. I don't understand Aithiests yet I regard them as particularly courageous to "leave" (if they were ever believers) the belief in a God. Not at all saying that their walking away means anything detrimental from my particular veiw point. I don't dabble in ritual myself (I even abhor it)I don't celebrate days, go to church, desire sermons, or pretend to be anything I'm not (except role playing with my hubby) I find none of the joys other christians might find in the structured organized type church setting. Praying was something I use to do way back but it was not satifying in the least. But I do pray (communicate) in my heart not outloud or many words and I'm always amazed when "things begin to happen" (syncronicity? maybe) By "things" I find I'm drawn to certain things without reason why but begin finding out later. Then "poof" after three months everything receeds and everything in my life is quite and quite back to normal (including abnormalities too). In these times I begin to question, "where is this awesome feeling that I had, filled with beauty, truth, and life giving power"? I felt like every thought coming in was so "revelatory". To live without the kind of inspiration I have known would be to rip everything I find beautiful in this world. I don't get from other people what I need to feel alive. Whatever (whoever) inside me causes me to write a song or a poem to feel all the things I suppose you might find "funny" or explainable by way of science (I'm unsure because I'm learning how you think). How does one chuck it all when you've known something in you this awesome? How do you face life knowing you'll hit the dirt (in your own thinking) never to see those who mean the very most to you? Even if it was an illusion (for sake of argument) isn't it more beautiful to be in a state of inspiration? I guess I'm not putting this right, I'm tired but I wanted to write you. I'm not saying, "believe" you either do or you don't. I guess I'm lost on the understanding of that personal choice. No doubt I would have a beef with christians (I do now I understand what you go through I really do) They can drive any good man to murder. Is your lack of faith (or unbelief) based on anything particular? I guess you must have answered that question a million times belonging to a board such as this but I don't know too much about each of you. Was it the physical evidence, or books, verses tampered with (Old,gospels, epistles?), or the way christians treated you or because of the study of myths and dreams? All of the above I'm clueless. I told someone I was reading Einstein I just love the book on his opinions and letters. He's a scientist, I thought maybe he did not have any type of faith either (perhaps not it didn't say one way or the other) But it is enough for me to see it in someone who does not profess. Reading Einsteins letters were really inspiring, I enjoyed him alot. Do you ever get inspired? Is it possible to get inspired at all just knowing you believe in nothing except science? I myself knew absolutely nothing about what is was like to be inspired before I became a christian so I make that association only because its the only experience from where I can draw a begining of this experience. I could ask you a billion questions and fill up this thread with nonsense but I thought I'd ask you how this came about for you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.