kimmy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 As for "some Christians today," I've no doubt that there have been Christians throughout history who have been every bit as "disgusting" as you claim Lou Engle and/or Fred Phelps to be; as far as I know, they haven't killed anyone in the name of Christianity. I'm sure Fred Phelps has never killed anyone, unless it was through laughter. Lou Engle, on the other hand, is among the American evangelicals who are quite proud of themselves for whipping up anti-gay hysteria in Uganda and getting a "death to fags" law put in place. I just find it odd when self proclaimed atheists speak of what Jesus would or wouldn't do, making misrepresentations of him in the process of criticizing Christians, stating what they think he would do/feel. I really don't get that. So hypothetically... would you say that only a Republican should be able to point out when a Republican politician takes positions that are contrary to Republican policies? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
eyeball Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 So he ran around brandishing a whip and flipping over tables... -k If Jesus did this today the authorities would declare orange alerts and the Bill O'Reilly's of the world would have an aneurysm. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 So hypothetically... would you say that only a Republican should be able to point out when a Republican politician takes positions that are contrary to Republican policies? Ummm. No. What I'm saying is I find it odd that people who claim not to believe in God make claims about what Jesus, the son of God, would feel/think/do. Non-Republicans don't deny the existence of Republicans. Hence the difference. Quote
kimmy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 If Jesus did this today the authorities would declare orange alerts and the Bill O'Reilly's of the world would have an aneurysm. ASSAULT AND LOOTING AT OCCUPY THE TEMPLE JERUSALEM -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
eyeball Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 I just find it odd when self proclaimed atheists speak of what Jesus would or wouldn't do, making misrepresentations of him in the process of criticizing Christians, stating what they think he would do/feel. I really don't get that. Don't worry, we get that you don't. Note this thread is as much or more about what people would do if Jesus appeared today not what Jesus would do. All the same and strangely enough, it seems it's always a lot more obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do in just about any situation. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
kimmy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Ummm. No. What I'm saying is I find it odd that people who claim not to believe in God make claims about what Jesus, the son of God, would feel/think/do. Non-Republicans don't deny the existence of Republicans. Hence the difference. Whether Jesus was the son of god, a normal man who was a respected teacher, a composite figure based on a number of historical figures, or a completely fictional fabrication doesn't matter. The Bible is certainly real, and it is the "policy platform" which Christians have committed themselves. Whether Jesus was the son of god or not, the policy platform is there in black and white. I'm pointing out that a prominent, loud minority of Christians aren't following their own "policy platform". They act nothing like that guy described in the New Testament taught. Some self-proclaimed Christians conduct their affairs in a way contrary to what the guy who is supposed to be at the center of their belief system taught them to act. While I personally don't believe Jesus to have been the son of god, people who do believe that had ought to act like they believe it. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Don't worry, we get that you don't. Whew. What a relief! I was sooooo worried!! Note this thread is as much or more about what people would do if Jesus appeared today not what Jesus would do. And note that my response, my comments, have been in response to claims of what Jesus would do. All the same and strangely enough, it seems it's always a lot more obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do in just about any situation. Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other. Quote
eyeball Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. I have no problem acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus who was as pissed off at the 1% then as many are today. My problem is acknowledging the existence of Jesus the God. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other. Note I claim to know what Jesus would do, not God. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
kimmy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Whew. What a relief! I was sooooo worried!! And note that my response, my comments, have been in response to claims of what Jesus would do. Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other. Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 I have no problem acknowledging the existence of a man named Jesus who was as pissed off at the 1% then as many are today. My problem is acknowledging the existence of Jesus the God. Note I claim to know what Jesus would do, not God. Note that you're putting your connotation of what Jesus is on his existence - not Christianity's. My point stands. Quote
dre Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Note that you're putting your connotation of what Jesus is on his existence - not Christianity's. My point stands. Its not his connotations its Jesus's own words according to the Christian Bible. He was pretty clear on the whole idea of accumulating earthly material treasury. He said dont do it. He was also very clear on the chances of a rich person entering the kingdom of god (zero). Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
kimmy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Strangely enough, if it's obvious to an atheist what Jesus would do, said atheist is acknowledging the existence of Jesus. It's impossible to "know" what someone who doesn't exist would do. The two claims are totally at odds with each other. Not at all. Asking what Jesus would do in a situation is no different from asking what Tom Sawyer or Dirty Harry Callahan or Hawkeye Pierce would do: take a character with well-known traits and use that understanding of the character to extrapolate how that character would respond to a given situation. The only difference is, deciding how Tom Sawyer would handle a situation isn't a matter of theological importance to anyone. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Its not his connotations its Jesus's own words according to the Christian Bible. He was pretty clear on the whole idea of accumulating earthly material treasury. He said dont do it. He was also very clear on the chances of a rich person entering the kingdom of god (zero). Ummmm. I clearly wasn't referring to his connotation of Jesus' words............ Quote
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Not at all. Asking what Jesus would do in a situation is no different from asking what Tom Sawyer or Dirty Harry Callahan or Hawkeye Pierce would do...... Alrighty then. You've actually just strengthened my stance. Quote
kimmy Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) Alrighty then. You've actually just strengthened my stance. haha, no. Christians who ask "WWJD?" are speculating as to how Jesus would handle a situation based on what they've read about him in a book, which is an exercise that could just as easily performed for any other literary character, real or fictional. Such speculation in no way requires a belief in the historical existence of the character, just an understanding of the character as expressed in the literature. You've made a logical error. -k Edited November 12, 2011 by kimmy Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 You've made a logical error. Ummmm. No. Haha. I haven't. As I said, you just strengthen my stance. But do have a nice day. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want. Quote
eyeball Posted November 12, 2011 Report Posted November 12, 2011 Ummmm. No. Haha. I haven't. As I said, you just strengthen my stance. But do have a nice day. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want. I'm pretty sure if Jesus was posting this he'd include one of these Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
kimmy Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 Speculating how the guy described in the New Testament would respond to Lou Engle or Fred Phelps (or indeed much of present-day "Christian Right" politics) is a hypothetical question (and an easy one) that requires no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the historical accuracy of the bible, just a knowledge of the description we have in the Bible. You haven't (and you can't) argue otherwise. Not sure what the real issue is here; you seem bent by the idea that non-Christians might have opinions about Christian scripture. Maybe it seems presumptuous or something. Well, we live in nations where everybody-- Christian and non-Christian a like-- has plenty of exposure to Christian theology, and it's not hard to spot instances where the practice doesn't line up with the theory. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Guest Manny Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 No one knows for sure what Jesus would really do. Who can say they know what someone else would do? Some people might like to think so. However based on what's written in the bible let me point out, Jesus was against the scribes and the pharisees. He called the priests hypocrites and a brood of vipers. Looking at the history of the church over the next 1,500 years or so, became the very thing that Jesus was fighting against the most, the Roman empire. They inherited all the violence. The pope and the cardinals, they are like the emperor and the senators. They even wear the same red clothes. And look how they tortured people using the rack, the iron maiden and burning them alive. Sure some people will say, but they don't do those things now. But that is their historical legacy. For centuries they did that, to oppress humanity. That why they deserve to be trampled into the ground. So for me, my Jesus does not belong to any church. The kind of things that Jesus spoke about, love and mercy, understanding, forgiveness, you can't institutionalize that or make a system out of it. As soon as you do, you destroy it. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 Not sure what the real issue is here; you seem bent by the idea that non-Christians might have opinions about Christian scripture. Maybe it seems presumptuous or something. Come on, kimmy - you're smarter than that. I'm clearly not "bent" on the idea that non-Christians might have opinions about "Christian scripture." I've made it quite clear that it's not the opinions about "scripture" that I've been commenting on. Well, we live in nations where everybody-- Christian and non-Christian a like-- has plenty of exposure to Christian theology, and it's not hard to spot instances where the practice doesn't line up with the theory. Again, it's not comments on "Christian theology" that I've been responding to. It's the idea that someone who believes there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk, that there's no difference between Jesus and a fictional character, would presume to tell us "what Jesus would do." That is presumptuous. Or something. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 Note that you're putting your connotation of what Jesus is on his existence - not Christianity's. My point stands. For that matter, Christians don't even agree. Quote
cybercoma Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 Again, it's not comments on "Christian theology" that I've been responding to. It's the idea that someone who believes there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk, that there's no difference between Jesus and a fictional character, would presume to tell us "what Jesus would do." That is presumptuous. Or something. She didn't say there was no difference between them. She said Jesus can be read as a character out of the text of the Bible, regardless of your beliefs about his existence or divinity. Not once did she say, "there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk" [emphasis mine]. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 She didn't say there was no difference between them. She said Jesus can be read as a character out of the text of the Bible, regardless of your beliefs about his existence or divinity. Not once did she say, "there's no difference between Jesus and Pierce Hawk" [emphasis mine]. By comparing them both as "characters out of a book," no more, no less, one is in effect saying there is no difference. One is made up, thus their characteristics are made up, the other isn't. Quote
eyeball Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 By comparing them both as "characters out of a book," no more, no less, one is in effect saying there is no difference. One is made up, thus their characteristics are made up, the other isn't. And so atheists have no business asking WWJD because they're atheists? How profoundly odd. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
fellowtraveller Posted November 13, 2011 Report Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Most of the Christians I know are from sects like United, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic and they are not conservative or Conservatives. Edited November 13, 2011 by fellowtraveller Quote The government should do something.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.