what if jesus really did assend into the sky....

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:

That would be an over-generalization for New Testament readers.

The most salient points of the N.T. would be:

Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

There is no provision, no addendum at the end of that second commandment. For the time, the most obvious one would have been, "Unless they are Roman".

It is not there.

So "believers" can gauge themselves by how well they adhere to those 2 commandments. I suppose an atheist can gauge himself by how well he/she adheres to the second.

What action deed or word is less ethical because you didn't first think it necessary to become utterly submissive toward 'loving' an abstract concept before another human being, your neighbor.
Would you not suppose it less honorable, more troublesome, for a testament to be demanding first considerations go to a Lord (albeit imaginary) rather than a fellow human?


Fair to say one does understand the mind and the will of God perfectly, just as soon as the mind and the will of God conforms to what one understands.

 

[TheBlackHand]

Quote from Free Thinker:

"if Jesus were caught up at the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- with what we know today about the vastness of our galaxy -- Jesus would still be traveling today just to reach the outer limits of the Milky Way! Furthermore, there are billions and billions of galaxies!"Carl Sagan

do christians ever really think about these facts and ask themselves "how is that possible"?
what is wrong with admitting that the men who wrote the bible were clueless about how the world works and just let science and evidence be your guide?

You do not seem to much of a 'free thinker' - more of a 'retarded thinker'.

You base your assumptions on the discoveries of man to date, as if we had full knowledge of everything.

We used to think the world was flat. You are simply a modern day equivalent of someone who believed in witches. It is clear you have great issues stretching your mind to things outside of the current known sphere of knowledge.

I expect you have no imagination, zero creative skills, and were hopeless at art at school.

In short, you are a philistine.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from TheBlackHand:

You do not seem to much of a 'free thinker' - more of a 'retarded thinker'.

You base your assumptions on the discoveries of man to date, as if we had full knowledge of everything.

We used to think the world was flat. You are simply a modern day equivalent of someone who believed in witches. It is clear you have great issues stretching your mind to things outside of the current known sphere of knowledge.

I expect you have no imagination, zero creative skills, and were hopeless at art at school.

In short, you are a philistine.

if a critical thinker ran into the problem you have they might take some time to study how the bible came about and who wrote it. then they might take each individual story in the bible and disect it and honestly ask themselves "how is that possible". thats what a thinker might do. maybe try it yourself. intellectual freedom is the ultimate freedom. you are no longer bound by primitive superstitions.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from stu:

What action deed or word is less ethical because you didn't first think it necessary to become utterly submissive toward 'loving' an abstract concept before another human being, your neighbor.
Would you not suppose it less honorable, more troublesome, for a testament to be demanding first considerations go to a Lord (albeit imaginary) rather than a fellow human?


Fair to say one does understand the mind and the will of God perfectly, just as soon as the mind and the will of God conforms to what one understands.

I do not see any contradiction in those 2 commandments. You can do both, or merely the 2nd, as you desire or see fit. There is no conflict.

I would say it is a problem in society that neither is done, more often than not, by believers or non-believers. Though I'm sure plenty would profess otherwise....

 

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:

I do not see any contradiction in those 2 commandments. You can do both, or merely the 2nd, as you desire or see fit. There is no conflict.

I would say it is a problem in society that neither is done, more often than not, by believers or non-believers. Though I'm sure plenty would profess otherwise....

I think there is a conflict.
Complete subservience to the first as stated, before all others, contradicts the second.
It is a clear testimony to do what you like, so long as one is convinced it is for and by the 'love' of the imaginary Lord.
It must include overcoming your neighbor for no other reason than its demand, or it is pointless and meaningless as any kind of commandment.

It is how wars were and still are started .
Accepting the fact that religion is often used as a political tool in support of all sorts of wrong ideas, had the first so called great commandment been "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." there would be a completely different emphasis portrayed.

One more in line with primarily maintaining humane priorities.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from stu:

I think there is a conflict.
Complete subservience to the first as stated, before all others, contradicts the second.
It is a clear testimony to do what you like, so long as one is convinced it is for and by the 'love' of the imaginary Lord.
It must include overcoming your neighbor for no other reason than its demand, or it is pointless and meaningless as any kind of commandment.

It is how wars were and still are started .
Accepting the fact that religion is often used as a political tool in support of all sorts of wrong ideas, had the first so called great commandment been "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." there would be a completely different emphasis portrayed.

One more in line with primarily maintaining humane priorities.

There is a conflict if you create a conflict.

There is no stipulation that fulfilling commandment 1 can or must be done by violating commandment 2.

To claim otherwise for political reasons, which would be usurping the intent, anything can be rationalized.

For Christians fed to the lions in the Roman Colosseum, they remained true to both.

 

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:

There is a conflict if you create a conflict.

There is no stipulation that fulfilling commandment 1 can or must be done by violating commandment 2.

To claim otherwise for political reasons, which would be usurping the intent, anything can be rationalized.

For Christians fed to the lions in the Roman Colosseum, they remained true to both.

One cannot stick to both, nor can one consider humanity, where commandment 1 requires an override of commandment 2.

That couldn't happen the other way about.

Usurping intent would be to switch commandment 1 with commandment 2.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from stu:

One cannot stick to both, nor can one consider humanity, where commandment 1 requires an override of commandment 2.

That couldn't happen the other way about.

Usurping intent would be to switch commandment 1 with commandment 2.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. I would not look upon it as fact though.

As I stated, the Christians fed to the lions maintained both. True, they did it at great personal sacrifice, because they physically died....

But then, so did the ones that put them in front of the lions. It was just a question of "when"....

 

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. I would not look upon it as fact though.

As I stated, the Christians fed to the lions maintained both. True, they did it at great personal sacrifice, because they physically died....

But then, so did the ones that put them in front of the lions. It was just a question of "when"....

Not sure it is just my opinion.
Commandment 1 subordinates commandment 2, being biblically described as "This is the first and great commandment."

Inevitably there is a conflict, as history so often demonstrates, about first 'loving' an imaginary Lord and such concepts, giving precedence against humanity.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from stu:

Not sure it is just my opinion.
Commandment 1 subordinates commandment 2, being biblically described as "This is the first and great commandment."

Inevitably there is a conflict, as history so often demonstrates, about first 'loving' an imaginary Lord and such concepts, giving precedence against humanity.

Oh, it is definitely your opinion.

You are appending an imaginary "Obey Commandment 1, and kill those who you think don't!" because of your own bias.

But that's ok.