Jesus a "great teacher"

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnehelen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
Regarding atheists, the Word of God is simply wrong. And I know this because I am an atheist.
Click to expand...
Yes, logic once again wins the day!

Consider the logical cogency of this claim:

Regarding fools, the Word of God is simply wrong. And I know this because I am a fool. :hmmm:
 
belorg said:
Regarding the Eucharist, the Word of God leads to a logical contradiction, so I reject it.
Click to expand...
You claimed to have studied the Word of God “in its entirety”.

So put your money where your mouth is.

Please give an explication of what the Word of God “in its entirety” says about the Eucharist.

Please make sure you are thorough.

Use your own words, of course, because you claim to have studied it “in its entirety”.

Did you study it in the original Greek? Or in Aramaic? Or Hebrew?
Or did you just go straight to the Latin?
 
belorg said:
If a poster claims ‘I never curse’ and in one of his next posts he actually does curse, then you do not have to know him to conclude he is not entirely consistent.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct.

So please give an example of Jesus claiming he never did something, then an example of him doing this very thing.

(NB: Jesus never claimed “I will never get angry.” or “I will never turn over tables” or “I will never make a whip and use it.”)
 
belorg said:
Because I am familiar with Catholic teachings asI am a former Catholic myself.
Click to expand...
Really? How well did you know the faith that you left?

Can you answer these questions without seeking succor in Fr. Google?

Where is Scripture in the Mass?
What is the Immaculate Conception?
Where is the Immaculate Conception found in Scripture?
 
PRmerger said:
You are absolutely correct.

So please give an example of Jesus claiming he never did something, then an example of him doing this very thing.

(NB: Jesus never claimed “I will never get angry.” or “I will never turn over tables” or “I will never make a whip and use it.”)
Click to expand...
Getting angry is a sign of personal weakness. Not something we want to see in a all powerful entity.

However, it does add some human aspect to it.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Getting angry is a sign of personal weakness. Not something we want to see in a all powerful entity.

However, it does add some human aspect to it.
Click to expand...
Righteous anger is, well, a virtue.

If the concept of a starving child does not get you angry, well, then, I daresay that there is a problem.
 
PRmerger said:
Righteous anger is, well, a virtue.

If the concept of a starving child does not get you angry, well, then, I daresay that there is a problem.
Click to expand...
The concept of a starving child does get me angry. Again, I am not God. God should not be angry. For any reason. It is a sign of personal weakness.

I am not sure how the concept of a starving child has much, if anything to do with a God getting angry for any reason. Righteous anger, I thought was reserved for the followers of God. For a multitude of reasons over the years to justify almost anything.

Daresay? Is this the middle ages? Who uses that type of language in everyday conversation?
 
StrawberryJam said:
…Righteous anger, I thought was reserved for the followers of God. For a multitude of reasons over the years to justify almost anything.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that is because we live in a culture of “tolerance” where the only sin is intolerance. That means we should not show righteous anger for any reason except to those so intolerant that they demonstrate righteous anger. :tsktsk:

Sigh! Makes me long for the middle ages. :knight2:

At least they knew the difference between right and wrong; may not have always lived up to it, but they knew. Sometimes I wonder if some of us even have a clue! (Present company excepted, of course).
 
belorg said:
No I don’t.

Those Greek and Indian concepts predate Jesus by a few hundred years. I am glad you admit now that Jesus’ teachings weren"t that original.
Click to expand...
I always find this argument about “Jesus’ teachings not being original” as amusing. The Christian viewpoint is that God made the world and all who are in it (even atheists, by the way; God made you with all of your doubts and great critical abilities). Therefore when Jesus, Son of God, spoke, he was addressing, correcting, enlarging and fulfilling many world teachings that came before and long after His birth to guide us closer to the Truth.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Your argument is intended to be stronger than “I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded…” What you are claiming is that Jesus was inconsistent in his teaching and that, in itself, is enough to show He could not have been God.

Actually, it is you who are being inconsistent. Logically, it adds up to:
  1. If Jesus claimed to be God and he wasn’t, he was not necessarily a lunatic but could have been deluded.
  2. God would not be inconsistent.
  3. Jesus was an inconsistent moral teacher.
    Conclusion: Jesus could not be God, therefore he wasn’t necessarily a lunatic, but he would have been deluded. (Which implies if he wasn’t a lunatic then he was deluded.)
That has been your position all along, yet you say:
Click to expand...
My argument logically entails this, yes, but I am not claiming it. I let you draw the conclusions. All I claim with certainty is that Jesus was not consistent in his moral teachings. And if it folws from this that he wasn’t God, then so be it. But that is not the prime intention of my claim about him being inconsistent.
You apparently have some difficulties withn subtleties, Peter.
Apparently, you do not understand the concept of inconsistency because you are being precisely that, so why should we accept that you can even apply the concept to Jesus?
Click to expand...
Well, that would make me an expert on inconsistency, and why wouldn’t you accept the arguments of an expert? 🙂
Both of these claims have been soundly refuted.
Click to expand...
Jesus may have not explicitly condemned slavery because A) He understood that doing so in the political milieu he was in, given his authority among the people, could have generated a great deal of backlash from ruling authorities who were quite capable of unleashing ferocious “justice.” Consider the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred a few years later. B) His message was clearly addressing the source of evil (sin) and not merely attempting to bandaid symptoms of sin like abuse of power, etc.
Click to expand...
Jesus often spoke in parables. So he could have told a parable in which slavery was covertly condemned, but the only times he used something like slavery in his parables, it was consiered a nomral practise.
Therefore, it is logically possible that Jesus’ words and actions were consistent. You have certainly not demonstrated otherwise. Your claim that Jesus could not be God because he was inconsistent (for God, according to you, should be perfectly consistent) has been found wanting. Still you continue to flog this deceased horse of a submission on the hope that somehow it will resurrect as long as you repeat it ad tedium.
Click to expand...
Well, you are the ones who constantly bring it up. You have never refuted it, so it stil stands.
Yes, I know, you are claiming Jesus used unwarranted violence in the Temple as evidenced by that fact that the money changers ran out of the Temple in utter fear of the lashing cord of ropes. Perhaps the reason they “ran out” was because they knew that the “innocent business” they were engaged in was not so innocuous and they retreated compelled by their awareness of guilt, much as thieves flee from the crime scene when police arrive. They may have been acutely aware that they should not have been in the Temple carrying on dubious trading to begin with.
Click to expand...
If they were acutely aware that they should not have been in the Temple carrying on dubious trading to begin with, then Jesus’ violence was unwarranted. He could have easily persuaded them using words. So, youi have just proven my point.
 
Auntie_A said:
I always find this argument about “Jesus’ teachings not being original” as amusing. The Christian viewpoint is that God made the world and all who are in it (even atheists, by the way; God made you with all of your doubts and great critical abilities). Therefore when Jesus, Son of God, spoke, he was addressing, correcting, enlarging and fulfilling many world teachings that came before and long after His birth to guide us closer to the Truth.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. But the claim by many Christians is that Jesus’ teachings were original. That’s simply a false claim.
 
StrawberryJam said:
God should not be angry.
Click to expand...
That’s simply an unsubstantiated claim.

It’s like saying, “God should have made corn stalks bright red and apples should have been made to taste like persimmons.”
I am not sure how the concept of a starving child has much, if anything to do with a God getting angry for any reason.
Click to expand...
Please try to think in the abstract, and then you will be able to see how it relates.
Righteous anger, I thought was reserved for the followers of God.
Click to expand...
All things RIGHTEOUS are of God, not merely of his followers.
 
PRmerger said:
Really? How well did you know the faith that you left?

Can you answer these questions without seeking succor in Fr. Google?
Click to expand...
I didn’t know I had to do an exam here.
But, yes I can answer these questions.
Where is Scripture in the Mass?
Click to expand...
Just about everywhere.
What is the Immaculate Conception?
Click to expand...
The doctrine that says Mary did not have original sin.
Where is the Immaculate Conception found in Scripture?
Click to expand...
Nowhere explicitly. Some think ‘full of grace’ has something to do with it, but that’s debatable.
 
belorg said:
My argument logically entails this, yes, but I am not claiming it. I let you draw the conclusions. All I claim with certainty is that Jesus was not consistent in his moral teachings. And if it folws from this that he wasn’t God, then so be it. But that is not the prime intention of my claim about him being inconsistent.
You apparently have some difficulties withn subtleties, Peter.
Click to expand...
If an argument logically entails a conclusion and you agree with all the premises, then to deny it means you are being inconsistent.
belorg said:
Well, that would make me an expert on inconsistency, and why wouldn’t you accept the arguments of an expert? 🙂
Click to expand...
I guess? 😉 If being a plant makes you botanist and being a rock makes you a geologist. I have never seen any green plant scientists, though, although I met a paleontologist named Rocky once. Merely being something does not make you an expert on it, especially negative traits. It is the same non sequitur that makes you think that being an atheist makes you an expert on it or as pointed out in my previous post, if you were a fool, that would not make you an expert on folly. Negative traits are not ‘great making’ qualities. Inconsistency, in itself, makes you an expert on nothing.

These logical errors have been all too frequent, belorg, they ought to make you at least question the consistency of your atheism.
belorg said:
If they were acutely aware that they should not have been in the Temple carrying on dubious trading to begin with, then Jesus’ violence was unwarranted. He could have easily persuaded them using words. So, youi have just proven my point.
Click to expand...
Yes, and armed robbers are acutely aware that their actions have dubious moral merit, so the police should be restricted to using words because words should “easily persuade” them, as well.

How old are you belorg? Your answers are getting more adolescent with every post.
 
PRmerger said:
Do you think it’s good to be angry about a starving child?

Or it’s bad? So you should stop being angry?
Click to expand...
Is there a reason you could not respond to my post in one single concise reply? You chose to chop it up at will and respond to parts you wished to. It took you quite some time to do this.

Your question above is ridiculous.

We are talking about God’s response to starving children. I have expressed my view as a human.

I’m sure I can find as easily as you can a wonderful case to be made of all the starving children helping His plan. Suffering is a part of this plan in the catholic view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top