[POLL] A Jesus Question.

Post Reply New Topic

A question came up at a recent Bible study regarding Jesus (The Christ/Messiah of the Bible). "Which is better, to believe in Jesus, or to act like Jesus?" This is not a question of Faith vs. Works, just one of "Greatest Good".

The discussion went around and around, with no clear "right" answer. Of course, the people involved all claimed to be Christians, with a spectrum from total belief to total action. I had to wonder what normal people would say, so I'm posting this poll on a social website dedicated to ASDs and the people who have them.

You can choose only one option, and you can only vote once, so please choose carefully, and please keep your comments nice!

Thank you.

Jesus seemed to be sort of a down-to-earth type of carpenter guy.

He got pissed at the gamblers in the city----so he knocked over the tables (sort of extreme).

Otherwise.....pretty mellow, for the most part.

Actions over thoughts, would be my first reaction. But while even as an infidel I can acknowledge that Jesus had good things to say and set a positive example multiple times, the reverse is also true. So the important thing becomes exercising good judgement, but if that's the case, then believing in Jesus as a perfect example falls apart. Plus, if you act like jesus, should you also act as though you are Jesus?

Also, what do you mean by "believe"? Do I need to belive that he may have existed as a historical figure, or do I also need to believe in the mythology surrounding him?

Jesus was evil he didn't like money changers but approved of slavery because fundamentally Christianity is slavery.

there's a lot, and i don't trust the NT much,

one thing is the reworking of zarathustra into a jesus,

another similarity:
socrates and-plato, the sacrificed one is the story of the followers, who have complete liberty with a dead figure

creating marthyrs, the myth of....
the deathcult of (catholic) christianity,
neo-platinist-middle-eastern-turn' to ghosts and hierarchical childabuse-rings?
pic: (there's the pointy hat fyi) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... arcade.jpg
where's the respect for this body in this life, is it all for the Goa'uld?
why does religion happen to emanate out of deserts (prone to illusions and mirages) ?


manipulating the 'zeitgeist' was always the thing,
by religion
or by 'progress'

a corps on a stick is really fun graphics
bleeding away, humanistic example of how to proceed in life
(or a narcisstic suicide by cops for sjw-propaganda-purpose) (how about the archetype of 'false flag')

if anything 'feels good' lets proceed with caution:
In § 1, Nietzsche expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity. He disliked the contemporary "lazy peace," "cowardly compromise," "tolerance" and "resignation." This related to Schopenhauer's claim that knowledge of the inner nature of the world and life results in "... perfect resignation, which is the innermost spirit of Christianity ... ."

Nietzsche introduced his concept of will to power in § 2. He defined the concepts of good, bad and happiness in relation to the will to power. "What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome." Nietzsche's words were provocative and shocking in passages such as: "The weak and ill–constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill–constituted and weak — Christianity ... ." This is an example of Nietzsche's reaction against Schopenhauer, who had based all morality on compassion.
Nietzsche, on the contrary, praised "... virtue free of moralic acid."

Nietzsche went on to say that mankind, out of fear, has bred a weak, sick type of human. He blamed Christianity for demonizing strong, higher humans. Pascal, he claimed, was an intellectually strong man who was depraved by Christianity's teaching of original sin.

Mankind, according to Nietzsche, is corrupt and its highest values are depraved. He asserted that "... all the values in which mankind at present summarizes its highest desiderata are decadence values." Mankind is depraved because it has lost its instincts and prefers what is harmful to it. "I consider life itself instinct for growth, for durability, for accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline." Depravity results because "... nihilistic values dominate under the holiest names."

I can't believe that he would care if we believed in him or not, but I also must believe that he would care if we tried to emulate him and would prefer the latter rather than the former, as the greatest good.

He literally said "‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

did the Jesus seminar agree with this?

I googled them they formed in 1985 does it really matter what they thought?

it matters to me because they are ace scholars who know a helluva lot more than me about the subject. I defer to their wisdom.

If I told you that 50 islamic scholars and 100 regular muslims got together and voted on the historicity of Muhammeds flying horse, would you accept the outcome as valid?

Actually they weren't gamblers they were merchants busy turning the temple into a street fair by selling offerings and talismans, shouting over each other and making it impossible for anyone observe their faith. Pretty not OK really , wouldn't matter if it was a religion or just some people turning a meditation retreat into an unbearable fiasco of consumerism...really anyplace a bunch of jerks start shouting and turning a place that is supposed to be peaceful and calm into something insane would be about the same.

He is speaking for "The way" "The Truth" and "the life" . It took me years to work that out. it's like if you said "I am the chair sit upon me and FIND REST!" you wouldn't really be claiming you were a chair.

I’ve withered
a fig tree or two.

[Matthew 21: 12-13. And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER', but you are making it a ROBBERS DEN."]

The Jews made offering such as tithing, sin-offerings, thank-offerings to the temple. Jews traveled from all over the globe to the temple and carried with them the coinage from many countries. But the hierarchy of the Temple determined that only jewish coinage was an acceptable offering and that all other coinage must be converted. So they set up monopolies of moneychangers that pulled a profit. The priest and merchants were using the House of God to make money for themselves. That is why Jesus was upset.

In some ways it is equivalent to the Selling of Indulgences by the Church.

They had turned A House of Prayer into a Robber's Den.

^Same, but I recall that Shekels or whatever weren't used as currency in trade. The Romans probably preferred people to use their coins. That gave the money changers a monopoly, and allowed them to raise prices. Of course, they'd have to buy the coins back from the priests, so there would have been collusion of some sort. No wonder they don't highlight that aspect in churches.