The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2011, 03:37 AM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2011 03:41 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(12-07-2011 08:15 AM)Zach Wrote:  
(10-07-2011 11:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi....re the first quote. Someone else somewhere said the same thing to me. I have read the verses before and after Luke 19;27 in a number of different Bibles, and I just don't get how killing someone is part of the parable. I am not saying you are not right, but could you explain it to me?

From the SAB

Quote:19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

You could be right; these two verses could be taken separately from the actual parable. But I think they go with the story, demonstrating that the returning king will punish those who were complacent in his absence by taking back what he gave them, but those who had turned against him will be given a far worse punishment - death.

It seems like an attempted analogy for Jesus's second coming, with him being the king, but the consequences faced by each of the servants aren't analogous to the consequences that we'll supposedly face when he returns. The story doesn't make much sense to me, but I'd chalk that up to the fact that the bible is a load of bullshit.

Well....as I read it ( in whatever Bible you choose), Jesus is threatening anyone who doesn't accept him as the boss with death, even if this is part of a parable with another message.

Mate....I agree, is this not a classic example of bullshit in the Bible? Most Christians quote Jesus as if the words portray infallible truths. Yet they will happily ignore much of what Jesus had to say.

If you read a booklet on the rules of the road, and find a statement like
" Any child on a pedestrian crossing must be run over" , does not that make you question the value of the other rules in the booklet? Jesus runs over many children in the gospels.


(12-07-2011 05:11 AM)nontheocrat Wrote:  I laugh when Christians point to the Old Testament as flawed and brutal compare the the New. I feel quite to opposite, at least the Old makes each of us accountable for our own actions, I can think of no greater immorality than the sacrificing of an innocent for the guilt of others as portrayed in the Gospels. In essence, it allows even the greatest of evils to be done and then washed away with nothing more than an "I'm sorry". Such a belief system is begging to be used as a cover for unspeakable atrocity.

Absolutely. And we all know the atrocities committed by Christians in the name of jesus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2011, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2011 05:26 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
About Luke 19, the NIV has a pretty comprehensible version of this that definitely shows it as a parable. I would though care more about the fact that the king says ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.' I really really hate that he says those who have not will lose everything, how can the savior of the poor suggest that the poor can only become poorer? At least in this version the king in the story is obviously discussing that he will kill those who tried to prevent him from being king and says this at the end of his parable. Though they don't discuss what Zacchaeus the sinner (tax collector) thinks of this parable at all, they just go on to Jesus and horse thieving.

Yeah.. KJV it's still kinda noticeable but much less obvious since it's about Jesus in the next verse. Though still they go right from killing those who did not believe to stealing a horse. Yay the bible is so well edited. Remember that the king in the story has no name so basically Jesus would be talking about his own views in this.

Let's try now to comprehend this parable... The nobleman gives money to his servants before departing in hopes to be king. The citizens of his country hate him and send a message after him to prevent this from happening. When he returns king he calls for the servants. Those who come bringing him more money than he gave them are said to have had shown faith in very little and are rewarded sizeably. One admits to not liking the king that much and gives him his pound/mina back and he scolds the man about not having done anything with the money. Then he says these lines that you're talking about. In the parable it would suggest that the king is only going to reward those who believe in him and those who distrusted him will be stripped of everything. In fact right after he talks about the money he orders to have all the citizens that tried to stop him from being king killed (decimating his own kingdom). So I guess Jesus is just pushing the stupid statement that if you don't support him there will be nothing for you in his kingdom. Why don't they have Zacchaeus's reflection on this? They just leave the story half told. The horse thieving has to do with Jesus continuing forward.

The real issue with this passage, is that he's bringing up this parable to counter the fact that Zacchaeus, the sinner who collects taxes for Rome, gives half of his wealth to the poor and makes sure to always pay back double what he borrows. Quite the evil tax collector >.> Apparently in some version of the bible according to wikipedia the story goes on to have Zacchaeus moved by this tale and make a feast at his house.

So, should we just give up on this story and talk about how Jesus steals a horse and uses his followers clothes as a saddle too? =p

I haven't looked at the new testament all that much so I'm sorry that I'm not adding much, but I don't really care to read so much for so little reason. I'm fine with looking at parts though. sorry I'm being so quiet recently.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2011, 07:42 PM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(12-07-2011 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So then, you cannot be my disciple unless you give away everything you own." Luke 14:33 (CEV)
So Jesus only wanted poor people to follow him?

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36
No, wait. Jesus just wants well armed people to follow him!

"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:35-37
So...can I just be friends with my own family or what...?

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." Matthew 19:29 (NIV)
This just sounds cultish. And yay Jesus said "Drink the Kool-aid."

"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12:49-53
Again with the family hate. What an ass!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
Once more...with ZEST!

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." 1 John 3:15
Wait...Now I am just fucking confused...

Hey thanks for pointing these out. Not only are the "teachings" pathetically poorly written, they are also inconsistent. I'll add a little. Jesus promises people heaven, a reward he never has to deliver. Priests do the same thing. It gives them a right to control people's behaviour without needing to provide a valid reason to do so and without them having to provide the reward.

And...who else finds it patronising to be offered a reward for good behaviour? I think I behave well because it is to everyone's benefit, not because I'll get a prize.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2011, 08:54 PM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(13-07-2011 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-07-2011 08:15 AM)Zach Wrote:  
(10-07-2011 11:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi....re the first quote. Someone else somewhere said the same thing to me. I have read the verses before and after Luke 19;27 in a number of different Bibles, and I just don't get how killing someone is part of the parable. I am not saying you are not right, but could you explain it to me?

From the SAB

Quote:19:26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

You could be right; these two verses could be taken separately from the actual parable. But I think they go with the story, demonstrating that the returning king will punish those who were complacent in his absence by taking back what he gave them, but those who had turned against him will be given a far worse punishment - death.

It seems like an attempted analogy for Jesus's second coming, with him being the king, but the consequences faced by each of the servants aren't analogous to the consequences that we'll supposedly face when he returns. The story doesn't make much sense to me, but I'd chalk that up to the fact that the bible is a load of bullshit.

Well....as I read it ( in whatever Bible you choose), Jesus is threatening anyone who doesn't accept him as the boss with death, even if this is part of a parable with another message.

Mate....I agree, is this not a classic example of bullshit in the Bible? Most Christians quote Jesus as if the words portray infallible truths. Yet they will happily ignore much of what Jesus had to say.

If you read a booklet on the rules of the road, and find a statement like
" Any child on a pedestrian crossing must be run over" , does not that make you question the value of the other rules in the booklet? Jesus runs over many children in the gospels.


(12-07-2011 05:11 AM)nontheocrat Wrote:  I laugh when Christians point to the Old Testament as flawed and brutal compare the the New. I feel quite to opposite, at least the Old makes each of us accountable for our own actions, I can think of no greater immorality than the sacrificing of an innocent for the guilt of others as portrayed in the Gospels. In essence, it allows even the greatest of evils to be done and then washed away with nothing more than an "I'm sorry". Such a belief system is begging to be used as a cover for unspeakable atrocity.

Absolutely. And we all know the atrocities committed by Christians in the name of jesus.

Ps A few years ago Ago i worked out the origin of the ridiculous "jesus died for your sins" idea. It was made up by Paul, roughly 20 years after jesus' death, so the real Jesus knew nothing of it. I'll cut and paste a few paragraphs for anyone interested...

"Crucifixion was a dreadful and shameful death reserved for the worst criminals. The Romans used it to get rid of trouble causers and as a warning to others that if you messed with Rome you paid the price. So people regarded anyone who had been crucified as a trouble causer. It was not something Paul was proud to advertise had happened to the key figure of the religion he was promoting. He couldn’t deny Jesus had been crucified, so needed a way to make his Gentile audience think of it as something more than the punishment of a troublesome Jew.

The idea that Jesus was crucified to save people from their sins was his rather odd explanation. A lot of people have since accepted this unusual idea as the truth. Why?
Having the Son of God become human and relieve man of the burden of his sins was an attractive story. God was no longer the distant God of the Old Testament, the god of the Jews, but was someone who had become a human in the person of Jesus. This Jesus then took on the burden of man’s punishment. That turned him into a great guy, everybody’s best friend. Paul said that all that was needed was an unquestioning belief that this was how things were to gain a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with these ideas such that they have been stated as fact so often and for so long today’s Christians have just rather passively accepted them.

Yet in my opinion these are irrational arguments. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why should any thinking person accept Paul’s ideas about sin?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2011, 04:51 AM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(13-07-2011 08:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ps A few years ago Ago i worked out the origin of the ridiculous "jesus died for your sins" idea. It was made up by Paul, roughly 20 years after jesus' death, so the real Jesus knew nothing of it. I'll cut and paste a few paragraphs for anyone interested...

"Crucifixion was a dreadful and shameful death reserved for the worst criminals. The Romans used it to get rid of trouble causers and as a warning to others that if you messed with Rome you paid the price. So people regarded anyone who had been crucified as a trouble causer. It was not something Paul was proud to advertise had happened to the key figure of the religion he was promoting. He couldn’t deny Jesus had been crucified, so needed a way to make his Gentile audience think of it as something more than the punishment of a troublesome Jew.

The idea that Jesus was crucified to save people from their sins was his rather odd explanation. A lot of people have since accepted this unusual idea as the truth. Why?
Having the Son of God become human and relieve man of the burden of his sins was an attractive story. God was no longer the distant God of the Old Testament, the god of the Jews, but was someone who had become a human in the person of Jesus. This Jesus then took on the burden of man’s punishment. That turned him into a great guy, everybody’s best friend. Paul said that all that was needed was an unquestioning belief that this was how things were to gain a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with these ideas such that they have been stated as fact so often and for so long today’s Christians have just rather passively accepted them.

Yet in my opinion these are irrational arguments. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why should any thinking person accept Paul’s ideas about sin?"

Mark,

I could not agree more, back when I was a young minister I noticed that the gospels and the writings attributed to Paul didn't seem to fit together. Some time after I left church I learned that the book of Mark did not originally contain the resurrection story which makes it obvious (to me) that the gospel Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish Messiah wanna-be who failed miserably, if he existed at all.

According to Burton L Mack's excellent book "Who wrote the New Testament?", the first century Christians were a collection of loosely related Greek Mystery cults with Jewish influence rolled in. According to him (and corroborated by several other authors I've read) the two largest opposing camps were the Gnostics and what he called "the Christ Cult" invented by Paul. The resurrection story became the centerpiece of the Christ Cult's theme and was added to their gospels accordingly finally becoming orthodoxy once they completely destroyed all other cults.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2011, 02:07 AM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(14-07-2011 04:51 AM)nontheocrat Wrote:  
(13-07-2011 08:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ps A few years ago Ago i worked out the origin of the ridiculous "jesus died for your sins" idea. It was made up by Paul, roughly 20 years after jesus' death, so the real Jesus knew nothing of it. I'll cut and paste a few paragraphs for anyone interested...

"Crucifixion was a dreadful and shameful death reserved for the worst criminals. The Romans used it to get rid of trouble causers and as a warning to others that if you messed with Rome you paid the price. So people regarded anyone who had been crucified as a trouble causer. It was not something Paul was proud to advertise had happened to the key figure of the religion he was promoting. He couldn’t deny Jesus had been crucified, so needed a way to make his Gentile audience think of it as something more than the punishment of a troublesome Jew.

The idea that Jesus was crucified to save people from their sins was his rather odd explanation. A lot of people have since accepted this unusual idea as the truth. Why?
Having the Son of God become human and relieve man of the burden of his sins was an attractive story. God was no longer the distant God of the Old Testament, the god of the Jews, but was someone who had become a human in the person of Jesus. This Jesus then took on the burden of man’s punishment. That turned him into a great guy, everybody’s best friend. Paul said that all that was needed was an unquestioning belief that this was how things were to gain a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with these ideas such that they have been stated as fact so often and for so long today’s Christians have just rather passively accepted them.

Yet in my opinion these are irrational arguments. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why should any thinking person accept Paul’s ideas about sin?"

Mark,

I could not agree more, back when I was a young minister I noticed that the gospels and the writings attributed to Paul didn't seem to fit together. Some time after I left church I learned that the book of Mark did not originally contain the resurrection story which makes it obvious (to me) that the gospel Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish Messiah wanna-be who failed miserably, if he existed at all.

According to Burton L Mack's excellent book "Who wrote the New Testament?", the first century Christians were a collection of loosely related Greek Mystery cults with Jewish influence rolled in. According to him (and corroborated by several other authors I've read) the two largest opposing camps were the Gnostics and what he called "the Christ Cult" invented by Paul. The resurrection story became the centerpiece of the Christ Cult's theme and was added to their gospels accordingly finally becoming orthodoxy once they completely destroyed all other cults.

Oh yes! We must talk more, your website looks excellent. Congratulations!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2011, 04:37 AM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(15-07-2011 02:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Oh yes! We must talk more, your website looks excellent. Congratulations!

Very kind of you, I created my website two years ago and it's pretty much been ignored by most people so I've kind of lost steam. Thanks for the encouraging words.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2011, 06:58 PM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
What about the intolerant Jesus?

“Anyone who believes in the Son has eternal life, but anyone who refuses to believe in the Son will never see life: the anger of God stays on him.” (John 3:33 NJB)
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 NJB)
Jesus even threatened to burn, kill or condemn others to hell for not believing;
“Anyone who does not remain in me is like a branch that has been thrown away – he withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and they are burnt.” (John 15:6 NJB).
"And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust from your feet. I tell you solemnly on the day of judgement it will not go as hard with the land of Sodom and Gomorrah as with that town.” (Matthew 10:14-15 NJB) (A similar quote is repeated in Mark 6:11).

Is it any wonder throughout history some Christians have killed and bad mouthed others? Confucius and Buddha taught universal love and respect. Imagine the pleasant state of the world today if Jesus had done so too!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2011, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2011 07:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
(12-07-2011 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So then, you cannot be my disciple unless you give away everything you own." Luke 14:33 (CEV)
So Jesus only wanted poor people to follow him?

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36
No, wait. Jesus just wants well armed people to follow him!

"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:35-37
So...can I just be friends with my own family or what...?

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." Matthew 19:29 (NIV)
This just sounds cultish. And yay Jesus said "Drink the Kool-aid."

"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12:49-53
Again with the family hate. What an ass!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
Once more...with ZEST!

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." 1 John 3:15
Wait...Now I am just fucking confused...

LOL! This jesus character is so pathetically pathetic. I just don't get why so many people claim they love him. Surely its just because they're programmed to. You can't love someone who talks like this!


(18-07-2011 07:34 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-07-2011 10:53 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "So then, you cannot be my disciple unless you give away everything you own." Luke 14:33 (CEV)
So Jesus only wanted poor people to follow him?

He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Luke 22:36
No, wait. Jesus just wants well armed people to follow him!

"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:35-37
So...can I just be friends with my own family or what...?

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." Matthew 19:29 (NIV)
This just sounds cultish. And yay Jesus said "Drink the Kool-aid."

"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." Luke 12:49-53
Again with the family hate. What an ass!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26
Once more...with ZEST!

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." 1 John 3:15
Wait...Now I am just fucking confused...

LOL! This jesus character is so pathetically pathetic. I just don't get why so many people claim they love him. Surely its just because they're programmed to. You can't love someone who talks like this!

PS...anyone know why most Christians claim to love jesus? Surely they don't believe J died for their sins?....or do they?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2011, 08:57 AM
RE: The Extremely Questionable Ethics of Jesus
I forget the book and verse, but the description of being punished for your thoughts as if they were your actions is one that always got me. If you look upon a woman with lust, you've actually committed adultery. If you hate someone, you've actually committed murder. And according to Jewish law, should be killed for these thoughts.

And in further Christian doctrine, will be burned in Hell forever for them.

Jesus was the original Big Brother.

Our brains deceive us on a regular basis, so we have to find ways to fight back.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheSixthGlass's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: