List the BAD things about Jesus

You did a lot of defending here without speaking to the moral values Jesus was putting into his policies.

I agree somewhat with your view of that clip on what he says of the golden rule. That agreement does not take away the fact that that rule is unworkable rhetoric and that the first great law is showing a God who is self-centered instead of centered on others which is what morality is supposed to be all about. Right?

Jesus' forgiveness policy is anti-love and so is his divorce law.

In his forgiveness policy he ignored all the good Jewish laws in place, rather strange for a Jew. Right?
Here is something on that. Please read and tell us what you think of man loosing all the benefits that forgiveness brings to us. The madman clips speaks to this but likely further on from where you stopped.

http://www.thepowerofforgiveness.com/pdf/A_Jewish_Perspective_on_Forgiveness.pdf

As to Jesus' divorce law, or no divorce law really, says let no man put asunder. That means that I have to let my wife continue to beat me twice a week and have to put up with it.

That is definitely unjust and anti-love.

Shall we debate?

Or will you just continue to deny without a defence of his policies?

Regards
DL

 

Here you are blaming nature as your scapegoat while ignoring that nature, according to your dog(*)(*)(*)(*) dogma is controlled by God.

But I see what kind of believer you are. Try thinking like moral believers that are portrayed in this clip.

[video=youtube;dx7irFN2gdI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI[/video]

Regards
DL

 

The other guys fault, not yours.
Got it.

 

Your own hyperbole belies the theme of your post.

Regardless of that, regarding who Jesus was or claimed to be:

Many things are attributed to this man, whoever he was and whenever he was born or died.

Nothing of the little known about him is known for a certainty.

Those of us from outside the chtistian tradition see him as none of those things you'd say that he was nor what you say the "zealots*" claim.

As nothing that "Jesus" (there was nobody by that name) was recorded by him, nothing was recorded ("recorded", some or all of it fabaricated decades later) of his life while he lived.
Claims that a guy cast demons into pigs, walked on water, sprang to life after being tortured to death take a lot of early childhood indoctrination
or profound credulity to believe.


Claims to write verbatim a speech given decades earlier are preposterous.

Or no, lets use your expression,
"all and all an absurdity".

*zealot is a good word to use here. That is what Jesus appears to have been. But who knows, it could all be made up like the name.

 

No they could not be beaten to death. There is no way of determining whether a man will live or die after a severe beating, and who would risk that. The possible 2 day period is to show intent. If you intend to murder you do so, the fact that the person survives at least two days could mean the intent was not to kill, but to punish. We are not talking about a judicial system backed by medicine and forensics, but a trial and error system.
In an earlier civilisation people were thrown into the Tigris or Euphrates to determine their guilt or innocence. If they got ashore alive they were innocent. If they drowned they were guilty. Perhaps an incentive to learn to swim.

Slavery is not a simple subject in the Bible. There are several types of slaves , some with rights, some without. Some taken in war. Some children sold by parents who couldn't afford to keep them. Some sold themselves into slavery when they couldn't pay their debts. If they saved some money they could buy their freedom, if not they were free at the end of 6 years 'service'. Foreign slaves, Hebrew slaves.

In the beginning God told Moses to remind the Israelites to treat even slaves with respect, remembering that they had been slaves in Egypt.

And I'm not getting involved in the topic of slavery.

 

As to Jesus' divorce law, or no divorce law really

thats NOT a LAW its a directive.

CONTEXT and corss referemces MATTER

When Jesus mentions divorce in the Gospels, he is articulating his position on the Shammai/Hillel debate. He is not talking about the legitimacy of divorce in general. No rabbi would have asked, "Is it ever lawful for someone to divorce?"—it would have been like asking, "Is it ever lawful to do what Moses said in the law?" (Imagine someone in our day asking, "Do you think it's okay for a sixteen-year-old to drink?" We would know they meant "drink alcohol," but someone from another culture might need this spelled out. Likewise, we need Jesus divorce context spelled out for us, but his original hearers understood the Hillel-Shammai "any cause" debate.)

http://www.beliefnet.com/Love-Family/Relationships/2007/06/Let-There-Be-Divorce.aspx?p=2

 

"They are his property."
Translation. How a master beats the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of his slave is none of your business.
By the way, they did the same bit about drowning in colonial America.
Why?
Christianity.

 

Just as you put on me, I put on you.

Is equality and forgiveness not how people make up or do I have to grovel for you first?

Regards
DL

 

Not grovel, just answer my question.
What have I ever posted that you could have read as me being a fundamentalist supporter? How did I "communicate" that?

 

But I'm not a believer. Just one who has tried to understand the Bible from a Hebrew point of view. I do not believe that much of the OT has any relevance to anyone but the Jews.

 

This is true but remember tha Moses was also told not to kill yet almost the first thing he did upon his return with the big 10 was to have 3,000 of his people killed for idol worship.

He did not take that do not kill commandment to heart.

Regards
DL

 

Not fair play.
I point to foolish Christian theology and you bring in the brighter Jewish one.

The bible is what I am using to make my case and it has Jesus agreeing with the God of Eden with his, ---- let no man put asunder.

Regards
DL

 

what do you suspect that phrase let no man to put asunder to mean?

 

Yet Jesus quoted it and referred to it for his positions on policy.
You also ignore that stupid Trinity thing.

If you are to see God from the Jewish view, you cannot read anything literally and you have to know that they mostly believe that they are analysing myths and not reality.

To most Jews, Jesus, Moses etc. were and are all archetypes and that every generation is supposed to produce new ones.

Most Jews will talk more like atheists than believers.

That is why I get along with most Jews and we both generally do not like the Christian double moral standard.

Regards
DL

 

Quote by TheBruceBeat

"They are his property."
Translation. How a master beats the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of his slave is none of your business.
By the way, they did the same bit about drowning in colonial America.
Why?
Christianity.

Your interpretation. Not mine.

In Hebrew society of the age it was the business of others. A man could be held responsible for such actions even against his slaves if he killed them. In any case some slaves were worth more to him alive than dead.
His wife and children were 'his property'.


Not only that but they were supposed to set an example to other nations. Another theme throughout the OT.

I'm not taking and stand from any Christian point of view. Just a study point of view. I am not a believer - as you would call it.

 

The important part is what the churches think it means because they have been using it and ---- he will rule over you, to beat women into subjugation forever.

[video=youtube;jqN8EYIIR3g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related[/video]

Regards
DL

 

My only problem with Jesus is.....he was illiterate.

 

l

what GOD HAS PUT TOGETHER....is the prime principle upon which that statement stands.

let no man follows from same

"What therefore God hath joined together , let not man put asunder .

what do YOU think this means..and why?

 

Starting to recognize your modus operandi.
When you have no answer, you avoid the question.
You did it yesterday with your statements regarding love needing to be two way to be genuine.

 

What I think has no relevance here.

The Christian view is that God has joined two in matrimony and no man can declare it void.
IOW. No divorce.

Regards
DL

 

You just like to see e mail, be it worthy or not.
Finding a life might be good.

Regards
DL

 

it means,
A, that the society felt a marriage should be permanent
and
B, that nobody should interfere or try to break up a marriage
and
C. they attached "god" to it to make it more impressive

 

We may be getting closer to agreement.
Your relevance is definitely in question.

- - - Updated - - -

Answering direct questions in a forum might be also.
Try it, or your credibility is shot.

 

He seems to have had a role in the events leading to the destruction of the Jewish state by rome, and all the disasters since, not the least of which is the modern state of Israel, and what it does for world peace.

 

You realize you just implied your responses would not be worthy.