Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[JoStories]

I would believe you if there weren't murderous fools among every nation and culture in the world regardless of the presence of religion.

Warmongers will use every excuse under the sun to go to war. The ones in the US currently use "democracy" and "human rights" as their excuse for bombing and destabilising countries.

So the truth is human greed, pride and heartlessness are the driving forces behind a lack of peace in the word. And funny enough those are the very things most religions claim to be evil.

But not you of course. Nothing is evil or good according to you.

I don't believe in evil Thanda but I very much agree with the rest of what you say here. We are trying to veil war under the guise of trying to spread democracy. It was so with the Shrub (Bush) in particular, and his son, Shrub the second, made it even worse.

 

[Thanda]

I don't believe in evil Thanda but I very much agree with the rest of what you say here. We are trying to veil war under the guise of trying to spread democracy. It was so with the Shrub (Bush) in particular, and his son, Shrub the second, made it even worse.

What is your understanding of evil? I ask because you say you don't believe in evil while you also speak disapprovingly of the Bushes and warmongering in General.

 

[JoStories]

No you misunderstand his statement. What he is saying Jesus is "a" God because he is the Son of a God. Just like you are human because you are a son of humans.

I can't agree with that. That would mean, IMO, that your faith is polytheistic. If Jesus is a God and God is God, that is at least two Gods of your faith.

 

[JoStories]

What is your understanding of evil? I ask because you say you don't believe in evil while you also speak disapprovingly of the Bushes and warmongering in General.

I think evil is a man-made concept designed to keep people in line. Life is made of choices. Some make good choices, some make bad ones. But to call it evil makes one think of being a part of Satan and/or hell and such. To me, that makes no sense.

 

[Thanda]

I can't agree with that. That would mean, IMO, that your faith is polytheistic. If Jesus is a God and God is God, that is at least two Gods of your faith.

And unfortunately, Christians are so hung about not being perceived as "Polytheistic" that they end up coming up with convoluted constructs like a trinity where one God manifests himself as three different people.

Though I am Christian, I have no such issues. There are three Gods. They are however one in purpose and perfections. So whether a command is issued by Jesus, the Holy Ghost of the Father it is the same. And because of this unity which exists they are one God (or one Governing authority).

And this is the distinction that must be made. When we speak of a God or we speaking of a type of individual or are we speaking of a specific individual. The term God can refer to either. Generally in Christianity God is a personal title used to describe the Father. However it is sometimes used to describe an all powerful, all knowing entity. In this case it could refer to the Father, or the Son or the Holy Ghost.

 

[Thanda]

I think evil is a man-made concept designed to keep people in line. Life is made of choices. Some make good choices, some make bad ones. But to call it evil makes one think of being a part of Satan and/or hell and such. To me, that makes no sense.

Now I'm more confused. In the same paragraph in which you said evil is a man made construct you have defined some choices as bad and others as good. What made the choices bad or good? What standard was used?

Or perhaps are you saying that we as humans can decide what is bad or good according to our convenience but that such categorizations have no reality beyond ourselves and lives here on earth. That is, are you saying truth is subjective and relative?

 

[JoStories]

Now I'm more confused. In the same paragraph in which you said evil is a man made construct you have defined some choices as bad and others as good. What made the choices bad or good? What standard was used?

Or perhaps are you saying that we as humans can decide what is bad or good according to our convenience but that such categorizations have no reality beyond ourselves and lives here on earth. That is, are you saying truth is subjective and relative?

I'm sorry if I am not being clear Thanda. What I mean is that people can make choices. Each choice is personal. For example, I can choose to wear purple today. Some choices may break social laws which would make them 'bad' choices. Murder, for example. Or propagating hatred like the KKK or Fred Phelps of the world. Or one can choose to work toward peace, however one defines that. Good and bad can be both personal and social. When I conceive of the notion of evil, I tend to think of the concepts that are mostly Biblical. The devil and all that. For me, that is what is wrongheaded. I hope this makes it clearer.

 

[JoStories]

And unfortunately, Christians are so hung about not being perceived as "Polytheistic" that they end up coming up with convoluted constructs like a trinity where one God manifests himself as three different people.

Though I am Christian, I have no such issues. There are three Gods. They are however one in purpose and perfections. So whether a command is issued by Jesus, the Holy Ghost of the Father it is the same. And because of this unity which exists they are one God (or one Governing authority).

And this is the distinction that must be made. When we speak of a God or we speaking of a type of individual or are we speaking of a specific individual. The term God can refer to either. Generally in Christianity God is a personal title used to describe the Father. However it is sometimes used to describe an all powerful, all knowing entity. In this case it could refer to the Father, or the Son or the Holy Ghost.

That makes sense to me however, I don't agree with you. For me, there is ONE God. A God that can and does appeal to all faiths. For you, God has these three faces that you find solace in. For me, it is an energy if you will. For the Hindu, it might be one of many God faces. But you are very clear here and it is actually quite refreshing to read someone who has a very cogent idea about this.

 

[Thanda]

I'm sorry if I am not being clear Thanda. What I mean is that people can make choices. Each choice is personal. For example, I can choose to wear purple today. Some choices may break social laws which would make them 'bad' choices. Murder, for example. Or propagating hatred like the KKK or Fred Phelps of the world. Or one can choose to work toward peace, however one defines that. Good and bad can be both personal and social. When I conceive of the notion of evil, I tend to think of the concepts that are mostly Biblical. The devil and all that. For me, that is what is wrongheaded. I hope this makes it clearer.

Okay I see. So basically you view truth (the standard by which one can judge what is good and what is evil) as being a subjective and relative thing.

I notice though that under religion you have described yourself as spiritual. What place does good and evil have according to your spiritual interpretation of things?

 

[Thanda]

That makes sense to me however, I don't agree with you. For me, there is ONE God. A God that can and does appeal to all faiths. For you, God has these three faces that you find solace in. For me, it is an energy if you will. For the Hindu, it might be one of many God faces. But you are very clear here and it is actually quite refreshing to read someone who has a very cogent idea about this.

I believe that the Father sends the Holy Ghost to operate among and aid all his children to draw closer to an understanding of the truth. Since the final Judgement will mostly be based on how well we acted on the truth we received it is not absolutely important that every person have the same amount of knowledge of truth in this life.

God therefore brings truths into people lives by the power of the Holy Ghost whether they be Hindu, Bhuddists, Christians or, perhaps surprisingly, atheists. The test of this life is not to see how much truth you know but how willing you are to live whatever truth you do know.

Having said this there is an aspect where the amount of truth we know is an indication of our love of truth. If God gives a person some light that person can choose to live by it or they may reject it. If they live by it God will teach them a greater truth. And if they live by that greater truth he will reveal more to them. This process will go on until they can comprehend all things including God himself.

On the other hand if a man rejects a truth God will have to find some other way (or perhaps another time) to try to teach them the same truth. They cannot progress to greater knowledge until they understand and internalise the lessor knowledge. If that man continues on the path of rejecting truth until the end of his days then he will find himself possessing less knowledge at the last day. This lessor knowledge will not be counted as innocent ignorance but willful ignorance. It will be determined that this man in fact does not wish to gain light and knowledge and he desires to live in darkness. He will then be sent away to live with others like him who prefer darkness rather than light and truth and goodness. This place is called hell.

 

[JoStories]

Okay I see. So basically you view truth (the standard by which one can judge what is good and what is evil) as being a subjective and relative thing.

I notice though that under religion you have described yourself as spiritual. What place does good and evil have according to your spiritual interpretation of things?

Good question. For me, and I am Buddhist in most ways, good and evil have no place really. It amounts to living the most enlightened life I can in furtherance of my journey to being fully enlightened. I am kind, or try to be, to everyone, I don't harm anything and have a feral cat shelter. Its about living a life that God, and btw, not all Buddhists believe in God, a life that God would consider to be on the path of enlightenment. Its very individualized. For me, this life is about loss and learning that each life, while transitory, is eternal as well. Each life one learns something more. I hope this answers you.

 

[JoStories]

I believe that the Father sends the Holy Ghost to operate among and aid all his children to draw closer to an understanding of the truth. Since the final Judgement will mostly be based on how well we acted on the truth we received it is not absolutely important that every person have the same amount of knowledge of truth in this life.

God therefore brings truths into people lives by the power of the Holy Ghost whether they be Hindu, Bhuddists, Christians or, perhaps surprisingly, atheists. The test of this life is not to see how much truth you know but how willing you are to live whatever truth you do know.

Having said this there is an aspect where the amount of truth we know is an indication of our love of truth. If God gives a person some light that person can choose to live by it or they may reject it. If they live by it God will teach them a greater truth. And if they live by that greater truth he will reveal more to them. This process will go on until they can comprehend all things including God himself.

On the other hand if a man rejects a truth God will have to find some other way (or perhaps another time) to try to teach them the same truth. They cannot progress to greater knowledge until they understand and internalise the lessor knowledge. If that man continues on the path of rejecting truth until the end of his days then he will find himself possessing less knowledge at the last day. This lessor knowledge will not be counted as innocent ignorance but willful ignorance. It will be determined that this man in fact does not wish to gain light and knowledge and he desires to live in darkness. He will then be sent away to live with others like him who prefer darkness rather than light and truth and goodness. This place is called hell.

An incredibly refreshing view of your faith. It resonates to me of some of the tenets of Buddhism. I don't believe in hell per se. For me, that is too much of an either/or concept and does not reflect what God wants for us. However, most of what you say I absolutely agree with. It surprises me Thanda and I hope you are not insulted by my saying that. You have a remarkedly open and refreshing view of all faiths.

 

[Thanda]

Good question. For me, and I am Buddhist in most ways, good and evil have no place really. It amounts to living the most enlightened life I can in furtherance of my journey to being fully enlightened. I am kind, or try to be, to everyone, I don't harm anything and have a feral cat shelter. Its about living a life that God, and btw, not all Buddhists believe in God, a life that God would consider to be on the path of enlightenment. Its very individualized. For me, this life is about loss and learning that each life, while transitory, is eternal as well. Each life one learns something more. I hope this answers you.

Thanks. If I understand the implications of your doctrine correctly, does that mean that if a person doesn't live a life the God considers to be a path to enlightenment they will get another life and opportunity to do so? If so is there a situation where a person is so stubborn that they will have an infinite amount of lives because they never finally attain to full enlightenment. If so this outcome may very well be termed a hell. Being stuck in an endless cycle because you refuse to embrace the truth.

The problem with human beings is that they have the power to choose. And their ability to choose is so strong that they can choose whether to learn when given a lesson or not. So when you say "Each life one learns something more" it is dependent on the premise that that individual will actually choose to learn something more.

Is it not impossible to conceive a situation where an individual has accepted just as much truth as he will ever be willing to accept. What then happens to him? Why would one keep giving him the same lessons (by giving him more lives) if he has clearly come to a point where he is willing to learn no more.

The reason I am making this statement is not to challenge your beliefs so much as to give you a moral justification for hell. Hell (when spoken of as a eternal dwelling for the wicked) is just that place or even the society of those who reject truth and light and goodness.

That said I do not believe there is only a heaven and a hell. I believe there are different levels of reward given to people according to the their level of obedience to the laws of righteousness.

You might be interested in reading the following passages which are in one of the sacred books in my faith:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88?lang=eng

Verses 1 through 41 contain most of what I am trying to convey in this post.

 

[Etritonakin]

You have brought her up before and as I said then, most credible theologians reject her opinions as lacking any proof whatsoever. Stating that Jesus had four children, for one thing, would be the antithesis of what Christians believe. The Pesher technique is itself intriguing, insofar as it posits two levels of interpretation. That seems to intimate that most people have no real understanding of their own religion and I believe you would find that most would strongly disagree with you on that mark. And two messiahs? Really? Who do you posit are these two?

I am not actually assuming that, and did not address that -I was describing different possible scenarios -I do not know who was actually present, and have not looked into the matter.
I am addressing what is written in the bible, and the comments here about it.

If Matthew or John were not there, then, yes, it would not be direct knowledge of the experience.

Still, what is written does not -in any way -state that Judas never got close enough to Jesus to kiss him.

 

[JoStories]

I am not actually assuming that, and did not address that -I was describing different possible scenarios -I do not know who was actually present, and have not looked into the matter.
I am addressing what is written in the bible, and the comments here about it.

If Matthew or John were not there, then, yes, it would not be direct knowledge of the experience.

Still, what is written does not -in any way -state that Judas never got close enough to Jesus to kiss him.

That particular post was written to Mr. Evans. However, the one verse in question does not state that he was close enough and in fact, states he was not. Does that mean he could not have gotten that close? Maybe, maybe not. We cannot know as we were not there and the writers were writing long after the fact.

 

[Etritonakin]

That particular post was written to Mr. Evans. However, the one verse in question does not state that he was close enough and in fact, states he was not. Does that mean he could not have gotten that close? Maybe, maybe not. We cannot know as we were not there and the writers were writing long after the fact.

If you would prefer I not quote your posts which are not addressed to me, I will try to remember to comply.

"However, the one verse in question does not state that he was close enough and in fact, states he was not." .....It may indicate he was not at that instant -but does not state he was never.

"Does that mean he could not have gotten that close? Maybe, maybe not." .......is my point

"We cannot know as we were not there" ......I do not know what those present or writing had in their minds.

"and the writers were writing long after the fact." .....I do not know this to be true

 

[Unification]

Do you really, I don't think so.

Sure, look around... there are miserable, depressed, suffering people everywhere, even many with fake smiles and fake happiness but empty inside. They are all experiencing a conscious state of inner hell and torment.

Doing something good for one or more, helping would very much matter.

If someone were living in fear of going to hell upon physical death, it would be good to show them that their (living in fear) is already being in hell now due to the doctrine their mind is being spoonfed. An opportunity to bring inner peace and an escape to someone, to many.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Do you think the apostles, and everyone who thinks to have the truth revealed to them, has the mind of a little child?

Ciao

- viole

I'm sure there are plenty of ways of revealing this verse in its entirety - though how to show it is literally children I am not sure. Perhaps then that is the point that there must be a message underneath what is read.
Now I recall that the lord always spoke in parables - so now I have the answer, that he was not speaking of literal children.
It can, therefore, be seen as having a childlike mind, eager to learn, without malice or arrogance etc; but the main answer for B Thiering (largely discredited) is that the "children" were one group or another of Gentiles.

 

[outhouse]

Having said this there is an aspect where the amount of truth we know is an indication of our love of truth.

From what I have seen. They greater the belief the further away from the truth many theist literally run.

Truth is a dangerous word to use in a religious discussion.

I can show you the truth, and have in past and you reject it. With religion comes fanaticism and fundamentalism. The negative does not outweigh the positive but lets be real.


The truth is, Israelites had no exodus as described and were never in Egypt as Israelite slaves.

The truth is Abraham never existed, nor many other characters.

The truth is Israelites were multi cultural and combined two deities into one during the exile.


This is all backed by knowledge and factual evidence to support the truth. It is also in encyclopedias. If you would like sources I can provide then to support every sentence.

 

[outhouse]

Now I recall that the lord always spoke in parables

We dont know how he always spoke.

We suspect he used parables in his teachings, but its unlikely nor supported that he "always" spoke in parables.

We the unknown authors who were not witness to a single word he ever said, have him sometimes speaking in parables, but again, not always.