Jesus a "great teacher"

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnehelen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StrawberryJam said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Catholic answer to suffering is: God makes it up to those poor little ones who suffer.

The atheist answer is to suffering is…?? Perhaps something along the lines of “Stuff happens”??
 
stewstew03 said:
As opposed to… expressing your view as a Klingon?
Click to expand...
Haha. I am not up for question on my reply to how angry I would be. We are talking about God, not any human and most certianly not me.

Anything to detract from getting anyone to think about God getting angry will do at this point.
 
PRmerger said:
The Catholic answer to suffering is: ** God makes it up **to those poor little ones who suffer.

The atheist answer is to suffering is…?? Perhaps something along the lines of “Stuff happens”??
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems as if much is being made up here.
 
belorg said:
But the claim by many Christians is that Jesus’ teachings were original.
Click to expand...
You are correct, belorg. Some of Jesus’ moral teachings were not “original”.

As Peter Kreeft says (paraphrasing), Jesus did not come to be a moral teacher. Every morally sane person already knew it was the right thing to do to turn the other cheek.

Jesus did not come to be a healer.

He came to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed.

And it seems to me that you understand that “righteous” anger is a GOOD.

And, as such, it belongs to God.
Click to expand...
I never said that getting angry about straving children was a good. Therefore, I hold no righteous anger about it.

It goes without saying that God would not have any belonging to it.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I never said that getting angry about straving children was a good.
Click to expand...
So it’s* bad,* then, to get angry about starving children? :confused:

One should be tolerant about this?

Or maybe stoic?

Or apathetic?

But not angry? Because that would be…

bad?
 
coachdennis said:
To say Jesus is simply a great teacher means that his teachings (Sermon on the Mount, etc.) can be great ethical concepts for living a positive life. However this limits who Jesus is.

Unlike someone who follows the teaches of Buddha, Daoism, etc., Jesus invites us to a personal relationship with him and communal relationship with the Church.

This is the big difference!!
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that He died on the Cross for our sins.:cool:
 
PRmerger said:
So it’s* bad,* then, to get angry about starving children? :confused:

One should be tolerant about this?

Or maybe stoic?

Or apathetic?

But not angry? Because that would be…

bad?
Click to expand...
You are striving, so very hard to try to get your checkmarks checked off to peg a person down to your worldview. Yet, at the same time you carefully avoid answering any questions put to you about God getting angry.
A balancing act.

You seem to be in a quandry about starving children. Or at least my position on it (as if it mattered as I am not God)
I have done what I could to answer your questions. You however, have not offered anything to help me understand how a God or your God responds to these things.

Well, wait. You did. I’m trying to find how you can stand behind the idea that these starving children will have a purpose in their suffering. It’s all for his plan that requires endless suffering for centuries and he is still not satisfyed yet. Much more suffering will have to pass. Why?
 
StrawberryJam said:
You are striving, so very hard to try to get your checkmarks checked off to peg a person down to your worldview. Yet, at the same time you carefully avoid answering any questions put to you about God getting angry.
A balancing act.

You seem to be in a quandry about starving children. Or at least my position on it (as if it mattered as I am not God)
I have done what I could to answer your questions. You however, have not offered anything to help me understand how a God or your God responds to these things.

Well, wait. You did. I’m trying to find how you can stand behind the idea that these starving children will have a purpose in their suffering. It’s all for his plan that requires endless suffering for centuries and he is still not satisfyed yet. Much more suffering will have to pass. Why?
Click to expand...
In all that verbiage I couldn’t decipher your answer to my question, Jam.

I will interpret the above to mean that you, OF COURSE, see righteous anger as a good thing.

You just don’t want to admit that to me. 🙂

And, as such, righteous anger is a GOOD that is the purview of a Good GOD.
 
Faithdancer said:
Not to mention the fact that He died on the Cross for our sins.:cool:
Click to expand...
It is believed that a God needed satisfaction by the killing of himself in bodily form for the sins of the first humans he claimed to create. Cool.
 
PRmerger said:
In all that verbiage I couldn’t decipher your answer to my question, Jam.

I will interpret the above to mean that you, OF COURSE, see righteous anger as a good thing.

You just don’t want to admit that to me. 🙂

And, as such, righteous anger is a GOOD that is the purview of a Good GOD.
Click to expand...
Look, I’m sure if we met in person we would understand each other better. Internet is lacking a certian dimension of communication. But, we try.

I can’t agree with the premise that righteous anger is a good thing.

For a couple of reasons.

What makes anger righteous?

Why does a God have to resort to such a human condition as anger?

We have no further to look than the most recent news events to see “righteous anger” being played out by offended muslims.

We have seen the Church do it as well, let’s not pretend it did not happen in the past.
 
AND…I daresay that I am going to wrap this up with a nice little bow. 🙂

It’s been established that it is a good thing to be angry at certain maladies.
Good people do it. Bad people do not.

And, I daresay, we all acknowledge that all good things belong to the Greatest Good

Therefore, for Jesus to get angry, when anger can be a good thing, is NOT to be inconsistent.

With that, I daresay, g’night to all! May the Greatest Good be part of your dreams tonight!

:kiss4you:

I eagerly await belorg’s response as to whether he sought aid in others to answer the very basic Catholic questions, or whether he’s going to, er, dare to say that he knew all of that of his own memory.
 
StrawberryJam said:
It is believed that a God needed satisfaction by the killing of himself in bodily form for the sins of the first humans he claimed to create. Cool.
Click to expand...
Basically, yes. He was the sacrificial lamb. He died for you, so that you might know Him. Who said chivalry was dead…?

:bible1:
 
StrawberryJam said:
It is believed that a God needed satisfaction by the killing of himself in bodily form for the sins of the first humans he claimed to create. Cool.
Click to expand...
Well, when you put it that way…

Think back to your own pre-born days, the days before you actually came to be.

Would you have ever anticipated that you would come into existence through a tube from inside another human being? Would you ever have anticipated having four long tentacle-like appendages with which to move about and grasp things with? Would you ever have anticipated anything about the world around you? Isn’t the entire world we have found ourselves in peculiar and strange, unbelievable, even? The only thing that makes the strangeness less than disconcerting is that we have gotten used to it and have acquiesced to the odd kind of consistency that is present in the world, but really, when you think of it, everything around us is no more or less unbelievable than your statement above. We just don’t see the same kind of purpose in it that is somewhat apparent in the regularity found in the physical world, but that does not mean the regularity is any less strange than what might lurk behind it.

Just a thought. :ehh:
 
StrawberryJam said:
It is believed that a God needed satisfaction by the killing of himself in bodily form for the sins of the first humans he claimed to create. Cool.
Click to expand...
Just when I thought I’d seen everything, along comes the elementary school “atheist” version of the crucifixion.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well, when you put it that way…

Think back to your own pre-born days, the days before you actually came to be.

Would you have ever anticipated that you would come into existence through a tube from inside another human being? Would you ever have anticipated having four long tentacle-like appendages with which to move about and grasp things with? Would you ever have anticipated anything about the world around you? Isn’t the entire world we have found ourselves in peculiar and strange, unbelievable, even? The only thing that makes the strangeness less than disconcerting is that we have gotten used to it and have acquiesced to the odd kind of consistency that is present in the world, but really, when you think of it, everything around us is no more or less unbelievable than your statement above. We just don’t see the same kind of purpose in it that is somewhat apparent in the regularity found in the physical world, but that does not mean the regularity is any less strange than what might lurk behind it.

Just a thought. :ehh:
Click to expand...
I like the road you are taking this to Peter. However, I never had any anticipation about how I would come into existance. I think we are close in thought, but when you speak of purpose, you would be right to say we just don’t see it the same way.

It is possible, that we are not so far apart in thinking. I am open to what might be. And I leave that openess when it contridicts the physical world. Yet I still keep a part of me open for that stranger I have not yet met.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top