Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 115953	2011-02-11 05:45:00	Jesus.	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1177129	2011-02-12 02:00:00	I mostly object to those who want to tell me he lives and doing so personally at my front door or by telephone. Have they not got something better to do with their time?	Snorkbox (15764)
1177130	2011-02-12 02:10:00	I mostly object to those who want to tell me he lives and doing so personally at my front door or by telephone. Have they not got something better to do with their time? Yes I can relate to this. I normally politely tell them that I am not interested in having religion rammed down my throat. Once they offered to wash my van for me but I thought no way, I would rather wash it myself. They use this as a ploy to get their foot in the door. I did not want them hanging around.	Bobh (5192)
1177131	2011-02-12 02:32:00	The question was, why does he have such a profound affect, even today. What was it he had? Meanwhile, back to the question, for which Cicero has yet to receive an answer! Neatly avoiding giving a proper answer, I guess he had similar qualities to other prophets like Mohammed (who seems to be having a greater effect these days than Jesus); Zarathustra, Siddhartha Gautama, whoever it was who established Taoism, Hinduism, sundry other prophets etc etc etc. Presumably it is an ability to convince enough people to share their vision; persuade them that 'god' speaks through them and that they are the true pathway to 'god'; that their precepts are a good way to a) live their lives, b) save their 'souls' for eternity or get virgins or something; and c) that if you follow their precepts you will be better than the other mob down the road and preferably you should torture or kill them until they are extinct so that everybody believes in the same thing (i.e. what the prophet believes). Now probably that isn't all down to the prophet in the first place; most of it is down to the people that a) blindly follow a strong leader (kind of like the Germans did in the 30's; b) think that this is a good way to get wealth, influence, power, or just a job - e.g. the multitude who join the movement as crusaders, priests, popes and inquisitors; and c) are poor sods who are struggling through life and are trying to find some meaning in it. Then there are those that have visions, like Jeanne d'Arc - nowadays they end up having a long rest and getting ECT. If you are talking about Jesus specifically, well he (and Mohammed) already had a pretty solid base to build on - the old testament, and a long tradition of monotheism - so it can't have been too hard. And if you boil it all down, what Jesus preached (apart from the spooky stuff) isn't too bad really - love your neighbour and all that stuff. And he made a good break from Leviticus and all that 'hate gays and lobsters' stuff. His preaching must have seemed pretty enlightened after that ghastly 'God The All Knowing and All Powerful Omnipotent Father' stuff. No problem with Jesus' teaching about a way of life - my problem is with all the spooky stuff (Son of God, son of a virgin etc) and religion. Like what men have done with what he taught. All that stuff about drinking blood and eating flesh, and killing infidels. Oh, and the amassing of vast wealth in the churches on the backs of the poor - still happening in NZ to this day.	John H (8)
1177132	2011-02-12 03:39:00	Every religious post really needs a tl;dr tbh.	--Wolf-- (128)
1177133	2011-02-12 03:44:00	Your view John is quite conditional. Shouldn't we ask what he said and go along with it, or not, I can't see how saying we like this but not that has much validity. Before England was England, the barbarians ruled, rather unpleasantly I may add.The monks taught the Christian ethic's which brought some ideas of goodness into the thinking of all the kings of whatever it was called at that time,it introduced writing and books, so it had a profound affect in setting they scene for less barbarous times and so .........	Cicero (40)
1177134	2011-02-12 04:00:00	Before England was England, the barbarians ruled, rather unpleasantly I may add.The monks taught the Christian ethic's which brought some ideas of goodness into the thinking of all the kings of whatever it was called at that time,it introduced writing and books, so it had a profound affect in setting they scene for less barbarous times and so ......... All that really changed was the same behaviour continued, but more frequently sanctioned by the State and in the name of the Church. Barbarity continued in the form of whippings, being burnt alive at the stake, internal organs cut from the live victim who was then forced to eat them. Genitalia were torn from the victim who was then forced to watch them being fried or fed to the local dogs. Et cetera. The growth industry of the day was erecting scaffolds, guillotines, and sharpening (sometimes) the executioner's axe. We haven't changed much since then. Go back only a generation or two, and it was our fathers who unhesitatingly killed others in cold blood, canabalised others. Once pack rule has taken control, most of us are likely to commit some atrocities because it is the pack committing them, and we are personally not held accountable. And if the state has sanctioned it, then so much more the better. Once the altercation ceases, then we go back to attending church, raising our kiddies properly, and becoming once again model citizens.	WalOne (4202)
1177135	2011-02-12 04:09:00	All that really changed was the same behaviour continued, but more frequently sanctioned by the State in the name of the Church. Barbarity continued in the form of whippings, being burnt alive at the stake, internal organs cut from the victim who was then forced to eat them. Et cetera. The growth industry of the day was erecting scaffolds, guillotines, and sharpening (sometimes) the executioner's axe. We haven't changed much since then. Go back only a generation or two, and it was our fathers who unhesitatingly killed others in cold blood, cannibalised others,. Once pack rule has taken control, most of us are likely to commit some atrocities because it is the pack committing them, and we are personally not held accountable. And if the state has sanctioned it, then so much more the better. Once the altercation ceases, then we go back to attending church, raising our kiddies properly, and becoming once again model citizens. I agree there have been lots of atrocities done in the name of religion, the point I was making was as a result of the teachings, we today largely think of fair play and decency.	Cicero (40)
1177136	2011-02-12 04:18:00	If I loved my neighbour SWMBO would probably kill ME, so where is the good in that I would be dead with no prospect of going to heaven because I am a non believer.	gary67 (56)
1177137	2011-02-12 04:18:00	Your view John is quite conditional . Shouldn't we ask what he said and go along with it, or not, I can't see how saying we like this but not that has much validity . (snip) I agree with your first sentence, but not the second . First, I was really only trying to suggest an answer to your question - everyone else (including me) kept wittering on about things that are peripheral to your question, despite the fact you had tried to bring the discussion back to it . My view on himself isn't particularly relevant to your question . I was just suggesting reasons why J might still have 'a profound effect, even today' . However, as far as I am concerned, the question you have raised now touches on the issue of faith, and belonging to a religious community . Sure, it seems to go with the deal that if you have faith in J (or any other prophet), you have to take the whole package, and woe betide you if you don't - you might end up with your fellow travellers down on you, or you can get kicked out for blasphemy etc (e . g . disfellowshipped in the JWs . ) . I don't have any faith in that religious sense, so I am quite happy to take the bits that I like, and ignore the rest . As far as I am concerned, 'love thy neighbour' seems a pretty good basis for life (though I don't always manage to live up to that - it is a pretty big ask to love Rodney Hide, Michael Laws, Roger Douglas, Roger Kerr etc etc) . However, I don't see why I need concern myself with things like 'washing in the blood of the lamb' which I heard at the last 'Christian' service I attended, and I can't avoid getting the creeps over transubstantiation, which I equate with spiritual cannibalism . I think my views are valid in that sense - basically I am happy with the ethics J suggested, but not the mumbo jumbo that seems to have been built on top of that mainly by the churches (e . g at the Council of Trent) .	John H (8)
1177138	2011-02-12 04:42:00	It's a tricky question J, I think we are in agreement on most, apart from you not loving my favourite people. Rodney Hide, Michael Laws, Roger Douglas, Roger Kerr etc etc).	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9