Why wouldn't Jesus be an asshole??

[Jenyar]

In response to Uberdragon's post: Yes Jesus had that chance, both religiously ("If you are truly the son of God then you can come down from the cross") and secularly. Investigating his life you'll see that He wasn't following his own will but that of his Father (as shown when he told his parents that he belonged in the house of his Father). That is why He prayed:
Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let [Matt 20:22] this cup pass from Me; [Matt 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 6:38] yet not as I will, but as You will."

Doom said This could indicate he didn't know he was a messiah or called himself that
Matt.26:59___Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.
60___They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward.

Matt.26:63___But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."
64___Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

And they used His own word to condemn Him to death. He testified against himself. What is the signifance that He kept silent? He wants us to say the words.

Zero: This saving grace is not exclusively enjoyed by Christians, it was not even meant for them in the first place (the Jews were the only "Christians" in that time). It is also not only for His followers at that time, as Uberdragon says "for their sins". Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present and future. You see this from the way it happened: people are saved by dying along with Him. That is the reason we identify with Him through baptism.

Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God
1___What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2___May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3___Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

That is why we read the Bible - to find out how and why we are saved, and what it means in practice, not just in theory.

 

[UberDragon]

you know, i'm sorry you had to right all that because, i don't go to church nor do i own a copy of the bible.

 

[doom]

Originally posted by Jenyar
In response to Uberdragon's post: Yes Jesus had that chance, both religiously ("If you are truly the son of God then you can come down from the cross") and secularly. Investigating his life you'll see that He wasn't following his own will but that of his Father (as shown when he told his parents that he belonged in the house of his Father). That is why He prayed:
Matthew 26:39
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let [Matt 20:22] this cup pass from Me; [Matt 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 6:38] yet not as I will, but as You will."

Doom said This could indicate he didn't know he was a messiah or called himself that
Matt.26:59___Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.
60___They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward.

Matt.26:63___But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."
64___Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

And they used His own word to condemn Him to death. He testified against himself. What is the signifance that He kept silent? He wants us to say the words.

Zero: This saving grace is not exclusively enjoyed by Christians, it was not even meant for them in the first place (the Jews were the only "Christians" in that time). It is also not only for His followers at that time, as Uberdragon says "for their sins". Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, past, present and future. You see this from the way it happened: people are saved by dying along with Him. That is the reason we identify with Him through baptism.

Romans 6
Believers Are Dead to Sin, Alive to God
1___What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2___May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3___Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?

That is why we read the Bible - to find out how and why we are saved, and what it means in practice, not just in theory.

Your absolutely correct!
i didnt understand a single word you said.

 

[Turduckin]

Originally posted by Xev Love is a neurochemical reaction stimulated by the existence of another human. Nothing more, nothing less. Serotonin and dopamine have more to do with this allegedly "good" emotion than God ever has. Inner peace is a comforting name we give to slavery.

Originally posted by Jaxom
I really hate statements like this, because it belittles mankind and his abilities. Is it totally incomprehensable that man can develop love and compassion without some supernatural intervention?

On love:
Both of you are at the crux of the issue. Xev. As a definition of Eros I would have to agree with your point about neurochemistry. As a definition of Philos (brotherly love, to use the sexist term) it might work for the most part. As a definition of Agape, well now you have to do some contortions. Did Ghandi starve himself for the freedom of his countrymen because of Serotonin and dopamine? Or Mother Theresa, or Martin Luther King or any one else who sacrificed their life for someone else? I’m not talking about the kind of reaction a mother has protecting her young, human or otherwise – that is definitely a neurochemical reaction that’s probably hard-wired with plenty of adrenaline and muscle recruitment – (I’m visualizing a mamma bear defending her cub or my wife kicking someone’s ass). No, I’m talking about the cool conviction that something is wrong that must not be allowed to stand, even if it means dying to try and stop it. Now we are in the realm of good and evil, love or indifference, self-sacrifice or sacrificing others. The more I think about that kind of love, that kind of sacrifice and how rare it is, I would have to answer yes to Jaxom. Based on what I know and have observed at this stage of my life, it is almost incomprehensible to me that a ball of rock, water and gases bombarded by sunlight for 4.5 billion years can develop or express love and compassion in the absence of a greater spiritual force.

On slavery and the belittlement of mankind:
I’ve read a lot of Ghandi’s writings, so I am comfortable making the statement that Ghandi was a slave. He did not belittle himself or anyone else, but he made himself into a servant – considering the welfare of everyone else above his own. He studied scripture every day, memorizing large portions of the Bahgavad Gita and setting his lifes hope and desire on joining with a God of truth. He sacrificed his desire for comforts and pleasures of the flesh, believing himself to be guided by the truth his God showed him. Look what he accomplished in his lifetime. But aren’t we all slaves to something? What do we think the most about? What drives us, compels us to action. Sex? Fear? (Fear of not getting sex?) Or is it an altruistic desire to help our fellow man? Jaxom, Cahill’s observation goes unanswered – show me the secular humanist that runs a leprosarium. Isn’t it possible he’s too busy glorifying mankind’s abilities to be of service to others? Xev, you are absolutely correct when you write, “Inner peace is a comforting name we give to slavery.” I know because I gain inner peace when I am of service others. Here’s something I’d like you to consider – “Comfort is just another word for death.”

 

[kidsun]

for turdukin,
slavery and service... slave and servant...

interesting that you equate the two. i see service as voluntary, whereas slavery would be submission to domination. i doubt that i could feel at peace within by submitting to domination rather than voluntarily working in unison with/for others. but i do see how you are drawing the two together to make a point... (maybe it's just semantics... the word "slavery" gives me a bad feeling.)

i'm unclear about how you are using the term "secular." do you mean unaffilated with any particular religion, or more simply, life without vows to live by? it sounds like you may be saying that people need religion to be of service to others.

regarding love: maybe the "greater spiritual force" IS the love energy. maybe it is not about who or what creates it but that we are able to open up and channel it, to give and receive it, to do amazing things with it and for it.

very interesting ideas you put forth. thank you.
(much to digest... i'll return to this i'm sure.)

 

[Turduckin]

Kidsun -

i see service as voluntary, whereas slavery would be submission to domination.

It's not just semantics. Service is not always voluntary and submission is not always by domination. If I went with my heart's desire, I would be servicing the woman in the service department where I work - even though she dresses provocatively and flirts with me because of really low self esteem from being molested as a child. What she REALLY needs is something more than what I desire to do when I'm with her. She needs healing.

There is no slavery when a man is free to do as he chooses. But if he is never allowed to act from his own will, he is indeed a slave. So will I be a slave to my lust which I freely and voluntarily wish to indulge? Or will I confess that my lust would do great harm to others and submit myself to a standard of action contrary to my primal nature, thereby becoming a slave in service to this womans true needs?

Entertain for a moment that everyone is a slave to some need. Even if I was free from all addictions, compulsions and obsessions, I cannot free myself from the need for shelter, water, fire or food.

For a definition of secular humanism (and quite a few other humanisms), check out http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html

There is something to what you say about the amazing power of love. But you don't like the word slavery and I don't like the word channeling. Channeling love makes it sound like a power source to be exploited, like electricity which flows through a wire without affecting it. Love, flowing through us to others is transforming, changing both us and the ones we love forever.

1JN 4:13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

 

[kidsun]

hello again turduckin,
thank you for that indepth response. i enjoy your writing very much.

"There is no slavery when a man is free to do as he chooses."

because you are insightful enough about yourself (and about this woman) to recognize your own (and her) needs and desires. you are free to choose how to be "of service" to this woman. this awareness, (truth) in a sense, "sets you free" from slavery. you wouldn't have that choice without that truth. you would be, in every sense of the word, a slave to your primitive nature.

you may indeed *feel* like a slave to the service of this woman's true needs, but having the choice in the first place means you are not actually a slave. you choose to serve her actual needs rather than your own libidinal ones.

"Entertain for a moment that everyone is a slave to some need."

everyone has needs, but being a slave to a need is a state of mind.

"I cannot free myself from the need for shelter, water, fire or food."

true. you can't free yourself from these needs. (unless you commit suicide) but you can choose to ignore those needs (not usually a wise choice, mind you...the term "passive suicide" comes to mind here) or, as ghandi did, you may choose to forgo the need for food, for example, in order to fulfill a higher need. again, he may have felt like a slave in service of this higher need, but having recognized and actualized a choice in the matter is, in itself, contrary to the definition of "slavery."

i suppose, though, if you believe you are a "slave," then you are.

i briefly checked out the "humanism" link. thank you for that. i do see your point about service and "secular humanism."

so you dislike the word "channeling?" fair enough. "channeling" is a term, like "transforming" (transformer) that can be associated with electricity. in fact i do very much experience love like a form of electricity. it does affect the "wire" (as you put it) when it flows through me, but more than that, the love that i give out is given right back to me, kind of like a feedback loop.

"and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."

 

[Turduckin]

Thanks, Kidsun - and ditto, I really enjoy reading your posts *and* your responses to everyone as well. You make some excellent points.

Originally posted by kidsun
you may choose to forgo the need for food, for example, in order to fulfill a higher need. again, he may have felt like a slave in service of this higher need, but having recognized and actualized a choice in the matter is, in itself, contrary to the definition of "slavery."

What makes this topic so intresting is it's 'edginess'. Say I choose to take a shower, but I don't want to get wet?. Now I'm in a quandary. If I wish to shower I have no choice other than to get wet. We have free will to choose. But, having chosen, we are a slave to the conditions resulting from that choice. Wanting to take a shower and remain dry is like wanting proof in a universe where some things are just unprovable (Godel's Theorem), or knowledge where some things are unknowable (how *does* it feel to stand in the center of the sun?).

This leads us back to the original question. If Jesus was sent here to die for our sins, why wasn't he 'a jerk' about it and just get on with the mission? That's the same question as "why would Ghandiji starve himself for the benefit of people who were at each others throats?" Jesus' mission, his motive, his choice was not just to teach about Love, but to express as a living example ultimate Love. If you choose Love, you are a slave to the conditions of Love. You can no longer indulge in anger, hatred, selfish desires etc, etc

GAL 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

1 CO 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Unless I find a PC while I'm up in NYC, I will be offline for a week. I will really miss reading what all of you (well, most of you) have to say.

 

[kidsun]

now i've got that sexy song by brian ferry called "slave to love" stuck in my head.

regarding showers and wetness..... i have very long hair. sometimes i want to shower without getting it wet, so i put on a shower cap.

there are choices to be made each step of the way.

however,.... i will say that once you commit to a path, any path, then you could say that you are a "slave" to it. (if you're successful in staying on it, that is.)

i'm stubborn, turduckin. i will still choose to avoid labeling it with that particular word. (you say po-tay-to....) just as i don't like to use the word "obedience," (i say po-tah-to) although i understand how that concept plays into it, too. (but we're both still feasting on the same spud)

what freedom loving rebel would ever want to label herself as an "obdedient slave??"

if we must be an "obedient slave" to something, though, it may as well be love.

have a great trip. thanks for indulging me. and thanks for appreciating my posts.

 

[Maro]

Jesus Not REALLY Human!!!

If my theory is correct, then Jesus was not human nor diety nor demigod, but actualy, an Astral Being. That means he is a mental creature that can use his mind as a teleportation device. In a sence, an Astral being stays in one place, with no sences, yet the abbility of total mental movement. I used the study of the brain: humans only use 10% of they're brain..." as abase system. I used the thought that Humans use 90% of thy're body, and 10% of they're mind. Astral Beings use only they're mind, meaning that they have 100% mental freedom. If I am corect, then his mind was killed when he visited our plain, and it also explains how he could perform such mirracles. As an Astral being, Jesus could control physical objects, like the water he turned into wine. I will expand my theory later

 

[James R]

It is an urban myth that humans only use 10% of their brains. We use our whole brains.

As for Jesus being an astral traveller, it makes a good story. Check out Patrick Tilley's novel <i>Mission</i>.

 

[Maro]

I don't think you understand...

I don't think you understand. Jesus was an Astral Being, from the ASTRAL PLAIN. He doesn't exist phisically, but has the abiliy to manipulate reality. You see, since Astral Beings exist not in matter, but in thought, they do no die by age, only they're mind can die. This happened when Jesus was Crusified(sp)at the cross. The Resurection was infact... Reincarnation. Jesus was reborn on a "Higher Plain"(les physically capible and less uniform in the way they think) and "teleported to his old world that loved him sooooooooooooooooo much( lol ) to show that he was still alive... in a sence... that he was th son of god. And the 10% brain thing, I do believe, since that would be thinking "out side the box". Tell me, if yo were working with Neroscience, would you ever want to feel like the human race is not second best?(oddly enough, people ar right!)making them think that Everyone is stupid? it doesn't realy help if a nation does a studdy on it's citizens and finds out that in Astrilogical terms, they're all country bumpkins(no offence to country bumpkins). See my point?


____________________________________________________Real Truth sometimes resembles apparent truth.And sometimes not.

 

[James R]

Maro:

Welcome to sciforums.

<i>I don't think you understand. Jesus was an Astral Being, from the ASTRAL PLAIN. He doesn't exist phisically, but has the abiliy to manipulate reality.</i>

What led you to that conclusion?

<i>And the 10% brain thing, I do believe, since that would be thinking "out side the box".</i>

Neurological studies show that, for different tasks, humans use different parts of their brains. There is no part which is unused.

<i>Tell me, if yo were working with Neroscience, would you ever want to feel like the human race is not second best?</i>

Second best compared to what?

<i>it doesn't realy help if a nation does a studdy on it's citizens and finds out that in Astrilogical terms, they're all country bumpkins(no offence to country bumpkins). See my point?</i>

No, not really. Can you explain in more detail?

 

[Xev]

Turduckin:

He sacrificed his desire for comforts and pleasures of the flesh, believing himself to be guided by the truth his God showed him. Look what he accomplished in his lifetime.

Bah humbug. You glorify a man who is merely a slave to his own masochistic and egoistic needs and then claim that athiests, because they freely admit the root of this need, are not altruistic?

Xev, you are absolutely correct when you write, “Inner peace is a comforting name we give to slavery.” I know because I gain inner peace when I am of service others. Here’s something I’d like you to consider – “Comfort is just another word for death.”

You would really be of great service to me if you sent a private message with your credit card and bank account numbers.

Happiness is slavery, I think. Or perhaps I simply look down upon it because I know it is not possible for me to be happy, but I think if one was ever happy, one would be so absolutely dependant on the source of happiness that only a person with the strongest Will could break out of it.

Comfort makes us apathetic, so yes, I'd agree with you there too.

Life is just really fucking boring without pain and misery.

kidsun:

now i've got that sexy song by brian ferry called "slave to love" stuck in my head.

Odd thing, as I type this "Slave to Evil" comes on.

true. you can't free yourself from these needs. (unless you commit suicide) but you can choose to ignore those needs (not usually a wise choice, mind you...the term "passive suicide" comes to mind here) or, as ghandi did, you may choose to forgo the need for food, for example, in order to fulfill a higher need. again, he may have felt like a slave in service of this higher need, but having recognized and actualized a choice in the matter is, in itself, contrary to the definition of "slavery."

I am not a slave to oxygen simply because I need it to stay alive.

I'm simply fulfilling my needs and nature as a human being. "Slavery" comes into it not at all.

you may indeed *feel* like a slave to the service of this woman's true needs, but having the choice in the first place means you are not actually a slave. you choose to serve her actual needs rather than your own libidinal ones.

Or serving your libidinal needs thereby. In which case you're simply acting according to your desires, albeit your desire to be enslaved.

So when, exactly, is one enslaved? When one's mind is under the sway of an alien value, person or belief?

what freedom loving rebel would ever want to label herself as an "obdedient slave??"

*Xev grumbles and holds her head*

I do think about things besides sex, I do I do!

Right:

Again, serving an ideal doesn't make you its slave. Example, I am obsessed with power. I adore power, I cannot live without it, it is the only thing in the world that has never forsaken me. And yet my love of power does not make me her slave. She is mine, and I serve her by possessing her.

if we must be an "obedient slave" to something, though, it may as well be love.

Bah. Love is chick bullshit.

 

[The Marquis]

Originally posted by Xev
Again, serving an ideal doesn't make you its slave. Example, I am obsessed with power. I adore power, I cannot live without it, it is the only thing in the world that has never forsaken me. And yet my love of power does not make me her slave. She is mine, and I serve her by possessing her.

Do you differentiate at all between yourself and, say, a power hungry politician then? At what point do you become a slave to power rather than merely possessing it?

 

[Xev]

Do you differentiate at all between yourself and, say, a power hungry politician then?

Only in the way we seek and use power.

At what point do you become a slave to power rather than merely possessing it?

At the point I can no longer lose her.

 

[Turduckin]

Originally posted by kidsun now i've got that sexy song by brian ferry called "slave to love" stuck in my head.

Originally posted by Xev Odd thing, as I type this "Slave to Evil" comes on.

Weird - I was humming that annoying little dittie by Dylan - "You've got to serve somebody"

Originally posted by Xev Bah humbug. You glorify a man who is merely a slave to his own masochistic and egoistic needs and then claim that athiests, because they freely admit the root of this need, are not altruistic?

Reasonable, but rationally equivalent to me saying "Bah humbug, you say you know cleary the invisible heart of a man and judge the root of his motivations, then claim that atheists have a better handle on reality." We both have different background beliefs. But it does raise a question: In your view was Ghandi fundamentally any different from Stalin in his underlying motivations?

PS - never claimed that atheists aren't altruistic. But I believe that at an atheists' concern for self cripples his/her ability to be of service to others. I don't hear a lot about the Society for Ethical Culture running orphanages or leprosariums or hospitals or shelters etc, etc.

 

[Xev]

Turduckin:

Reasonable, but rationally equivalent to me saying "Bah humbug, you say you know cleary the invisible heart of a man and judge the root of his motivations, then claim that atheists have a better handle on reality."

I do not know. You claimed to know, I pointed out different motivations.

We both have different background beliefs. But it does raise a question: In your view was Ghandi fundamentally any different from Stalin in his underlying motivations?

How in the fuck should I know or care?

PS - never claimed that atheists aren't altruistic. But I believe that at an atheists' concern for self cripples his/her ability to be of service to others. I don't hear a lot about the Society for Ethical Culture running orphanages or leprosariums or hospitals or shelters etc, etc.

*Yawns*

You fundies should get a new stereotype to attack us with, this one is really boring.

You don't hear about athiests spilling the oceans of blood that the vicious sheep of the Nazarene did, now do you?

 

[Turduckin]

Originally posted by Xev
Turduckin:
You don't hear about athiests spilling the oceans of blood that the vicious sheep of the Nazarene did, now do you?

Gee, your right. That athiest named Stalin really didn't kill more people then Hitler. Boy - did you get uninteresting really quick!

 

[Zero]

You might've heard this all too often, but judging that someone is obsessed with him/herself just because s/he is atheist is stupid.