Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Jesus Christ was crucified for speaking out the TRUTH


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 238 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 22:11:47 GMT
Stu says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 22:18:22 GMT
Spin says:
Mr: No, they are not "bad". Their intentions are the same as anyone elses; to create a better world. I do not think God is going to send a man to "Hell" just because that man thought he was doing the best for mankind, =)

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 22:48:33 GMT
Lela says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 22:56:43 GMT
Spin says:
Lela: "Prior" to jesus, there was no christianity, Do Christians argue that everyone before Christ was a sinner. a blasphemer, damned to the hell christianity created over the last few hundred years? =)

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 22:58:05 GMT
Last edited by the author on 28 Nov 2012 23:01:14 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"In this respect, even if one does not believe in God, the teachings of Jesus (which are existent - the teachings...), did take the religion and its followers to a new level - more human and forgiving than the Torah laws - when people were ready to stone a woman to death thinking they were following God's punishments."
All the good teachings you will attribute to Jesus were not original for neither his time or location, so it's wrong to assume that without Jesus we'd not have them - with Jesus we already had them. They can be found in the writings of many other people that escaped your attention.

"Prior to Jesus teachings, all those atheists that had different believes would have probably been prosecuted or killed?!"
The killings of unbelievers went on for a good time after Jesus too.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 23:02:30 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 23:11:37 GMT
Lela says:
there was no christianity but there was a religion based on Torah's law... is that not right?!

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 23:22:20 GMT
Lela says:
Drew
Ok, lets continue in this direction.
Of course a lot of people have written, are writing and will write beautiful human messages and good teachings etc. However, would the voice of those people have been heard by Torah's followers if these writers did not share the same religious beliefs?! (especially 2,000 years ago) I do not think so...

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 23:27:41 GMT
Drew Jones says:
Some people can look beyond their supernatural beliefs and see moral sense, some can't. I don't see what point you are trying to make in all this. The bottom line is that Jesus/Christianity was not a moral revolution as some think. It carried rhetoric that was common place.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Nov 2012 23:27:49 GMT
A. Little says:
Are you suggesting that Judaism would've become the favoured religion in the Roman Empire if Christianity hadn't taken off?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 01:44:21 GMT
light says:
Hi Lela,

It is said that in ancient times God accepted all people, no matter their religion as long as they did their best to live by the 7 Laws of Noah:

"One must remember, most of the world lives under the Universal Rainbow / Noahic Covenant (Gen.9:1-17). These basic human spiritual- rights in the Universal Covenant, govern all humanity, and they were also restated by Yahshua, and the Apostles ( Mat.13:24-30; Act.15:29).

In ancient times, these 7 commandments were called "The Noachide Laws." They were preached by Noah which all people of the new world were required to follow.
1 - Do not murder (Shefichat damim).
2 - Do not steal or kidnap (Gezel).
3 - Do not worship false gods (Avodah zarah).
4 - Do not be sexually immoral (engage in incest, sodomy, bestiality, castration and adultery) (Gilui arayot).
5 - Do not utter GOD's name in vain, curse GOD, or pursue the occult (Birkat Hashem).
6 - Set up righteous and honest courts, and apply fair justice in judging offenders, and uphold the principles of the last five (Dinim).
7 - Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed, deals with abuse of animals (Ever Min HaChai).

The Seven Abominations - Proverbs 6:16-22

"These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

These things all pertain to common decency.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 08:20:54 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Lela- B/S- Christians have killed millions for their beliefs. They have tortured, murdered, burned people alive. You have no knowledge of the alleged wandering chippies sayings, you just have writings from many many years after the alleged events.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 08:23:06 GMT
C. A. Small says:
No it would have been Mithraism, it was a toss up between the two. As it happened Constantine's mother was a christian, and that is the way it went.

Posted on 29 Nov 2012 08:56:07 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Given the Gospels were written some decades after Jesus was supposed to have died, and given the low rates of literacy and the lack of other sources, not to mention means of recording events, it seems to me that it's highly unlikely even Matthew, Luke, John and Mark had any real idea what Jesus said.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 10:01:13 GMT
Lela says:
Drew
Some people can look beyond their supernatural beliefs and see moral sense, some can't. I don't see what point you are trying to make in all this.

The simple point I am trying to make:
I understand why some, not all, religious people cannot look beyond their supernatural beliefs and see moral sense in other writings, teachings, people who do not belong to the same "belief group" as theirs.

What I do not understand is, why some atheists, not all, who are not bound in their thinking by supernatural beliefs, cannot see the moral sense in Jesus teachings just because he does not belong to their "belief group"?!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 10:04:09 GMT
Lela says:
A little

You can call me arrogant, or ignorant, if I try to make historical claims as the one above. The point I was trying to make was very simple, as explained to Drew:

Drew
Some people can look beyond their supernatural beliefs and see moral sense, some can't. I don't see what point you are trying to make in all this.

I understand why some, not all, religious people cannot look beyond their supernatural beliefs and see moral sense in other writings, teachings, people who do not belong to the same "belief group" as theirs.

What I do not understand is, why some atheists, not all, who are not bound in their thinking by supernatural beliefs, cannot see the moral sense in Jesus teachings just because he does not belong to their "belief group"?!

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 10:06:41 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Lela- just to clear it up. atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. that's it. Atheists are not a "belief group".

If you mean the moral teachings attributed to jesus- then say so, but if you actually think they were jesus' teachings, please provide some evidence that they were. As Drew pointed out to you the teachings attributed to jesus are not unique to him, and his teachings are just part of one of the most violent, cruel and stupid books ever written.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 10:09:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2012 12:54:30 GMT
"What I do not understand is, why some atheists, not all, who are not bound in their thinking by supernatural beliefs, cannot see the moral sense in Jesus teachings just because he does not belong to their "belief group"?!"

As has been pointed out to you, by several posters, his teachings are unremarkable, if you strip the supernatural element out. They have been expressed by other sages, prophets and wise (wo)men and are the basis of most tribal societies. No big deal.

Edited for typo.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 10:23:47 GMT
Sann says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 11:10:55 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"What I do not understand is, why some atheists, not all, who are not bound in their thinking by supernatural beliefs, cannot see the moral sense in Jesus teachings just because he does not belong to their "belief group"?!"
Because morality has nothing to do with supernatural beliefs. The good Jesus said he did not own, there's little point in attributing it to Jesus as the those taken with him want to do. Cutting of their non-sequitors in the first instance is easiest if a little rash.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 11:14:35 GMT
Dan Fante says:
What actual contemporaneous accounts of Jesus exist? And by that I mean roughly written at the time, not decades later. And I ask that question with genuine interest because the life of the man intrigues me.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 11:34:57 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"... given the Roman propensity for the written word, the continuous references to him in their literature, the records kept within their legal system and the original texts from which the Bible is taken are pretty good 'contemporaneous evidence'."
Jesus doesn't appear on their records. The earliest Roman documentation is of Christian beliefs and come decades after the setting of the events in the Gospels.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 11:44:52 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Sann- sorry, try reading- I said there was no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus existance. That is true. Unless you know something the rest of the world has missed? I did not say jesus didn't exist. I think you might want to check "the continuous references to him in their literature" ( please show all these sources), "the original texts from which the Bible is taken " and then check the dictionary to comprehend what "contemporaneous" means. You might then find where you have gone wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 13:29:35 GMT
Lela says:
Small
"If you mean the moral teachings attributed to jesus- then say so, but if you actually think they were jesus' teachings, please provide some evidence that they were."

Why is it important to an atheist to prove if those teachings were coming from one person only, or were a record and accumulation of teachings through the years, from different awakened people that tried to open the eyes of masses, the eyes of the masses who were blindly following their religious leaders and the Torah rules without even questioning them.
How can an awakened person try to spread messages of peace and love to people blinded by religious rules, unless he adds a supernatural element to it, so that his/her messages are better received?!

"atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. that's it. Atheists are not a "belief group"."
I put " " meaning that the common belief is: the lack of a deity.

I am convinced that the only way to establish proper communication is by "learning to talk in the same language", so that hopefully a process of personal awakening will start to take place.
If you think I am an atheist, you would probably listen to me better, than if you thought I was a theist. Same with religious people. A religious person would be more open to listen to another religious person than to an atheist. Religious revolution can happen only when done by people that are part of that religion. For example,
I came across this programme on the life of Prophet Muhammad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULnh55XuQ4s
I am hopeful that if more and more muslims will watch this movie, it will help them reflect and perhaps change their fundamental beliefs, because the programme uses a peaceful language, does not deny Mohammad being a prophet, but at the same time uses logical arguments and examples to point out the weaknesses of the current Islamic interpretations.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Nov 2012 13:36:27 GMT
Lela says:
Drew
"The good Jesus said he did not own, there's little point in attributing it to Jesus as the those taken with him want to do."

When I was little I remember there was a theory that was claiming; "Shakespeare did not write himself his works, but he paid the person that wrote them and put his name on them."
Why does it matter who is the owner of the work, what is important is that the work exists...
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  23
Total posts:  238
Initial post:  27 Nov 2012
Latest post:  16 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions