Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He had very little knowledge of geography or anthropology, no knowledge of other cultures, alternative value systems or lifestyles, no knowledge of science or other religious or philosophical systems.Argument? Evidence?
He had very little knowledge of geography or anthropology, no knowledge of other cultures, alternative value systems or lifestyles, no knowledge of science or other religious or philosophical systems.
He was preaching his own values, drawn from the narrow outlook of his own Jewish tradition and its conflict with Rome.
You asking me? 'Cause I'd be happy to oblige.Argument? Evidence?
someone posted as such
let's see the knee jerk reactions
go for it
You asking me? 'Cause I'd be happy to oblige.
some catch phrases make it difficult to agree of a lenient and receiving frame of mind
wide is the way to destruction
narrow is the gate and few find it
I don't have to reference anything but understood/accepted "facts" about Jesus, honestly. Items which, if you are a theist of any stripes, you basically have no choice but to accept as true.Sure, although I would prefer that you reference historical Jesus scholarship in doing so - rather than quoting random passages without contextualization in the era, as many - both Christians and non-Christians - often do in such debates.
To prove he is narrow-minded, one would need to demonstrate firstly what a given verse or phrase means in the context of the period, and then secondly that it less tolerant or accepting than was the norm for Galilean or Judean preachers of that time (by referencing other works, for instance, like the Talmud; Josephus, Philo or the Qumran texts).
it was noted in scripture....He taught with parableBut what is the context here? Was Jesus unique in using an aphorism like this or are there parallels in contemporary Jewish or Greek literature? Does it have any of the connotations in first century Judaism that moderns read into it? Can we read it as literal or is their hyperbole involved?
I don't have to reference anything but understood/accepted "facts" about Jesus, honestly. Items which, if you are a theist of any stripes, you basically have no choice but to accept as true.
Jesus believed in God and strongly advocated believing in God.
Jesus was against harming even your enemies.
Jesus accepted that his horrific fate was the only way to "save" mankind.
Related to the above - Jesus believed that mankind needed to be saved.
Finally, if anything, Jesus should have been more open-minded about the idea providing actual, verifiable evidence of his claims. Instead he only ever told people what they needed to believe. If that's not closed-mindedness, I don't know what is.
... no knowledge of other cultures, alternative value systems or lifestyles,...
He was preaching his own values, drawn from the narrow outlook of his own Jewish tradition and its conflict with Rome.
some catch phrases make it difficult to agree of a lenient and receiving frame of mind
wide is the way to destruction
narrow is the gate and few find it
Really? An appeal to numbers? Are you being serious? Like any rationally thinking human, Jesus "the Galilean Jewish preacher crucified by the Romans" had the same opportunity as I do to examine the evidence of the claims of God's existence and realize that there isn't enough evidence to stand behind the claims. He had every opportunity to admit this to himself, if no one else. And instead, what did he do? Evangelize, evangelize, evangelize - without regard to the evidentiary support he, or anyone else, had. This is undeniable whether you are claiming a supernatural Jesus, or just claiming he was a man and that historical accounts are anywhere near accurate. Fact.What Galilean Jew didn't? Why do you suppose that he had the opportunity, in an essentially theocratic religious environment, to suggest otherwise?
In his 2017 book Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist, the atheist professor Richard Dawkins said the following:
"...Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option [in Judea], even for so radical a thinker as Jesus.
Nope, sorry, I don't grant you this point. Not by a long shot. Who then, was the first person to say "You know, this God stuff has no evidence, could be crap."? Your claim is that it was a person rooted in modernity? Is that it? What about all the times anyone ever looked at the claims of another god and rejected those? They were practicing the same form of thought... but their biases had them not making the same considerations over their own god. And so their rationality was only ever partial. Their mind's openness only ever partial.You are setting up an impossible standard of expectation here, by looking back at Jesus from the vantage point of modern secular theory.
My point was NOT that Jesus should have refrained from talking of peace between men. It was to ridicule his baseless and ridiculous assertion that this is an absolute paradigm.How terrible! In a cultural context in which Romans vilified their enemies at the frontiers of the empire as sub-human barbarians, while Jews and Samaritans saw each other as implacable ethnic foes without even attempting to understand each other's point of view, Jesus advocated loving one's enemies and treating them with kindness, indeed refraining from starting a cycle of retaliatory violence.
If they too spoke in terms of absolutes then yes... "Closed-minded the lot of them!" You seem to think you're hitting me with "gotchas." Just FYI - you can give that up at any time.How closed-minded of him! And indeed of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, who adopted similar strategies? And the Jains who taught ahimsa centuries before Jesus!
Closed-minded the lot of them!
I stand corrected then. This was not as "factual" as I would have expected of his life and stance. Can you inform me what was meant by his statement that "No man comes to the father except by me." within the context of your understanding?Penitential, sacrificial understandings of Jesus's death as being salvific arose in early Christian circles after his lifetime, according to the vast majority of scholars, as a means of coming to terms with the tragedy of his brutal execution.
As such, there is no clear evidence that he accepted that his horrible fate was a means of "saving" mankind, or that he had harboured any notion of 'salvation' in the traditional Christian meaning of the term, as a first century Jew.
Again, thank you for the correction and clarification. However, I'd just like to point out again that Jesus had no rational basis to conclude that there was a "coming of a utopian Kingdom of God", and in fact, according to the record, made statements that this coming would happen within the lifetimes of some of those present at the time of the telling. That did not happen. So not only did he have no rational basis within which to conclude this - no evidentiary support whatsoever - he also turned out to be completely wrong. He certainly could have been more open to the possibility that something for which he had absolutely no evidence was possibly not going to happen. And certainly could have been more open to the idea that it wouldn't happen at his beck and call.No, the early Christians did. He himself preached the coming of a utopian Kingdom of God.
Again, I see your point here, but he did not take it far enough... to any conclusion worth actually having. He still stopped short of the most honest position. That position being "I don't know." What is more open minded than admitting you don't know the truth? Not proclamations that the Abrahamic God is real and reachable only through yourself, that's for sure.Did he?
As Dawkins notes, Jesus didn't just "blindly" read the Torah and "rely on [Jewish] scripture, tradition, other received wisdom, and authority" (to quote your earlier points). Rather, he encouraged people to depart from the outmoded way of thinking of their ancestors and a literal interpretation of scriptural precepts, and embrace "a better way of thinking about and treating people": Matthew 5:38 - 43: “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times".
He encouraged his audience to stop thinking in terms of the "received wisdom" of their ancestors... Indeed, he plainly told his audience that they already possessed the ability to make their own value judgments about his ministry
Really? An appeal to numbers? Are you being serious? Like any rationally thinking human.
Jesus "the Galilean Jewish preacher crucified by the Romans" had the same opportunity as I do to examine the evidence of the claims of God's existence and realize that there isn't enough evidence to stand behind the claims.
Who then, was the first person to say "You know, this God stuff has no evidence, could be crap."?
I stand corrected then. This was not as "factual" as I would have expected of his life and stance. Can you inform me what was meant by his statement that "No man comes to the father except by me." within the context of your understanding?
Again, thank you for the correction and clarification. However, I'd just like to point out again that Jesus had no rational basis to conclude that there was a "coming of a utopian Kingdom of God", and in fact, according to the record, made statements that this coming would happen within the lifetimes of some of those present at the time of the telling. That did not happen.
I honestly had a feeling this was exactly what would happen. You ignored my point about the people of this time (the people of ANY time) making judgment claims about other gods they were most certainly informed of, and concluding that there was no reason to believe in them. This is the bullet that kills your argument. As stated, they had the capacity to make decisions based on evidence or lack thereof... but their biases toward their notion of "the one religion" had them stuck just like anyone who is of the same mindset in modernity.So, no - there is no justification for importing contemporary ideas onto pre-modern people and expecting them to conform to them.
I honestly had a feeling this was exactly what would happen. You ignored my point about the people of this time (the people of ANY time) making judgment claims about other gods they were most certainly informed of, and concluding that there was no reason to believe in them. This is the bullet that kills your argument. As stated, they had the capacity to make decisions based on evidence or lack thereof... but their biases toward their notion of "the one religion" had them stuck just like anyone who is of the same mindset in modernity.
In the end, if you want to honestly claim that there were absolutely no atheists during those early times, be my guest. I am of the strong opinion that such a notion is complete and utter crap.
Troll.someone posted as such
let's see the knee jerk reactions
go for it