List the BAD things about Jesus

The relevance to the question of morality is clear.

That divorce law is immoral and anti-love.

If it was not useless rhetoric and un-workable, then what, 60% of Christians would not be divorced.

Regards
DL

 

This sounds as though it were written by a small child who's just discovered that not everything he's been told is true. Did Santa forget to bring presents last year?

 

Your issues are with inerrant scripture and fundamentalists, not Christianity as a whole. I agree with that, and limit my commentary to that, not sweeping generalizations about a very diverse faith group.

 

"they" attached "god" to it?

nevermend

 

Of course Jesus quoted it. As a Teacher/Rabbi he would believe it and naturally quote from it.

If I want to understand what he was saying I have to understand the background and knowledge of the day. The fact we know differently now makes no difference. We know not to take the OT literally. He didn't and thus his teaching was based on what was believed at the time.
And that makes a difference to our criticism of his teaching.

 

Yes, pay no attention when you get a real answer.
Might be dangerous.

 

Indeed I was told this as a Christian-raised (indoctrinated) child. I'd like other people to realize that it's all a big lie. The biggest lie in world history.

 

So the question is, how will you communicate it so that people care to listen?
Already the threads you are starting are having fewer and fewer subscribers, as they already know what to expect, and one has been deleted as flamebait.
Something isn't working, FS.

 

What hasn't worked is 2000+ years (and counting) of acceptance that the major religions are here to stay. I don't accept that.

 

Non-responsive to my post.

 

A new approach is needed, obviously. We just saw one more reason why in Kenya yesterday....and no Muslim on this forum will dare proclaim "I'm going to improve the Qur'an by making it less violent!", even though the Qu'ran is responsible for Kenya, clearly. Modern Secular Humanism is more moral than the religious defenders out there are. Neither will any Christian even suggest they do so, for fear of having to do the same with their own logically-indefensible belief system. Intellectual cowardice is a real problem in the world today.

 

And you are demonstrating it here.
Many of these believers agree that the scriptures are flawed.
They don't agree that creating a new book is the answer, but like has always been the case they find legitimate scholarship that undermines it and fresher interpretations of it to suffice.
You want a book.
Competing books will not cause the end of fundamentalism. It will just create new factions.

 

So we should not try to improve on Mein Kampf at all, just enjoy it the way it is, eh?
The reason they don't create new versions is that the bible says not to, and they are afraid of the magic invisible super-hero of said book, despite their being no evidence for his existence. That's intellectual cowardice. They'd be better parents if they'd do that, but they are even too scared to dare to be better parents.

 

Not sure I see that. What "destruction of the Jewish state by rome" could be linked to him?

He was supposedly "quoted"....but wrote ZERO books of the New Testament himself.

 

When Herod's building projects were completed there was widespread unemployment.. The various Jewish factions fought each other and the Romans. The various factions taught compliance with the Romans.. The Essenes moved into the desert.. There were Zealots and the Sicarri..

Jesus taught non-violent liberation theology..

 

What would be the value of rewriting Mein Kampf? The book preserves the errors in the thinking of a madman. That's very valuable.
Either you are ignorant of the academic scholarship that is readily embraced by many believers and the variety of understandings of how scripture is both flawed and valuable, or you choose to ignore it.
The reason they don't create new bibles is they have no need to. They understand it's flawed, and many understand that disagreements about interpretation will always exist. A new version of the bible simply creates a new document to find fault with. It's a never ending spiral they choose not to enter.
Instead, they discuss it.
Many like adults.

 

I should have said "Nazis using a new revised/modernized book to guide their children, and not using Mein Kampf as the main book, since it's immoral like the book about Jesus obviously is."

 

So the everyday texts books that your children use in school, if they just say happened to have ones that said that blacks are inferior (schoold ext books from the 1940's probably said that), then you of course would not improve them, you'd just EXPLAIN to the children, every single day that they read them alone in their room, that those texts are wrong. You'd spend hours each month doing this apparently? No, you'd improve them, so that those atrocities show up less and less in their daily lives. The old versions certainly could be kept for historical sake, just not given to kids each successive semester, obviously. A moral person would do that.

 

That's better, but then why would we need a new version now? That wouldn't change the history of what they had already read.
Not really following this response.

 

Fair enough, but even today we see the old textbooks that have absurd things in them being supported by people that still want to believe in them, calling the new textbooks with better scholarship "revisionist", creating another layer of texts to find in error.
It doesn't change anything.
Since the history of the bible can neither be proved or disproved for the most part, and the miracles have to be taken on faith, what is really accomplished with the new and improved bible you crave that discussion of the ancient text doesn't already accomplish?
Would fundamentalists embrace the new version?

 

As a zealot who opposed Roman occupation, he was part of the group who finally aggravated the Romans into retribution.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on which accounts of history. Noahs ark isnt hard to disprove.

 

Jesus wasn't a zealot........... I explained earlier.

 

well, perhaps not. Im not a student of such things.
He apparently was a radical, tho, so its not surprising the Pomans saw him as an enemy of the state.

 

No.. Jesus taught non-violent liberation theology.. He taught the people how to cope with the Roman occupation.. (think Ghandi)

See Sermon on the Mount.

The Romans didn't see Jesus as an enemy of the state.. the Pharisees and Sadducees did.

 

It is if you're operating on faith.