Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you find it a funny thing that 'atheists' should know so well how 'Christians' should be acting, but that they won't hold themselves to the same standards? I'd say that reeks of the same type of hypocrisy and judgmentalism that they are always accusing 'Christians' of.
They certainly seem to and not without reason.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersNot really. It hasn't been my experience that on the whole 'Christians' are any more moral than atheists. You'd think the difference would be quite pronounced if the 'Christians' actually followed the teachings of Jesus. I can only deduce that they don't. Many seem to be intoxicated with the idea that all they have to do is profess belief that Jesus died for everyone's sins, which of course is contrary to what Jesus taught. It's really quite sad.
Do you find it a funny thing that 'atheists' should know so well how 'Christians' should be acting, but that they won't hold themselves to the same standards? I'd say that reeks of the same type of hypocrisy and judgmentalism that they are always accusing 'Christians' of.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersHe could have saved himself. He knew in advance his fate. He even told the disciples at the last supper that he was going to be betrayed. He knew full well (apparently) that he was going to be killed. He could have prevented it, but he didn't. He was the son of God who could walk on water - he could have stopped it in a minute.
Wow. I don't think anything more can be said here. You are just being willfully ignorant (translation: dumb on purpose.)
Your analogy with the person jumping in front of a bullet is therefore not appropriate. People who jump in front of bullets do so to protect one they love (or are being paid to), perhaps a child. They don't consciously think about it, and most certainly don't have time to consider the possibility of their own death. There is a huge leap between the two.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersI don't set myself ridiculous standards to live by. You do.
Do you find it a funny thing that 'atheists' should know so well how 'Christians' should be acting, but that they won't hold themselves to the same standards? I'd say that reeks of the same type of hypocrisy and judgmentalism that they are always accusing 'Christians' of.
Why should I hold myself to your standards?
Seriously, did you actually attend school?
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirI checked it out and can see various interpretations. None of them come across as a direct claim to being a unique son.
Did Jesus ever say that he was God's son, out of the context of: "We are ALL God's sons."?
Originally posted by dizzyfingers
Quite forcefully. Check this out (from the Gospel according to John):
If that was the best you can come up with then shavixmir must be right.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersThe only standards I truly expect others to live by are the standards set by society in law. I do however frown on people who do not live up to my own standards. I also criticize any Christian (or anyone else for that mater) who is a hypocrite and preaches standards that they do not live up to.
Do you find it a funny thing that 'atheists' should know so well how 'Christians' should be acting, but that they won't hold themselves to the same standards? I'd say that reeks of the same type of hypocrisy and judgmentalism that they are always accusing 'Christians' of.
It is not hypocrisy for me to point out others hypocrisy. I have no problem with certain levels of judgementalism - unless the person doing it is being hypocritical and telling everyone else not to (Christians).
On average I see no difference between the morals of Christians and the morals of others. I certainly think my own morals if judged by my own standards or by Christian standards are above average - I do better than a lot of Christians. I obviously then question why these Christians do not follow the standards of their faith. It leads me to question how serious they are about their faith. I remember my first thought on 9/11 was "now there is someone who actually believes"
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt wasn't suicide. He didn't want to die: "Take this cup away from me"
Either his death was a sacrifice (suicide) or it wasn't
Sacrifice is giving something you don't want to give, but doing it anyway.
By the way I think Shavixmir is right, Jesus never claimed to be Gods only son.
Originally posted by thymeBut he didn't prevent himself from being killed, despite being perfectly able to. In fact, one could say, he effectively put himself in harms way by being in the place where he knew he'd be arrested. Being an omniscient being, he could have just hid, or just been somewhere else. The fact that he knowingly chose to put himself in harm's way, was suicidal.
It wasn't suicide. He didn't want to die
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, it was sacrificial.
But he didn't prevent himself from being killed, despite being perfectly able to. In fact, one could say, he effectively put himself in harms way by being in the place where he knew he'd be arrested. Being an omniscient being, he could have just hid, or just been somewhere else. The fact that he knowingly chose to put himself in harm's way, was suicidal.
Like you said yourself, "...he effectively put himself in harms way by being in the place where he knew he'd be arrested."
Since you don't believe the story you should at least acknowledge the facts. Why try to reinterpret it to suit your world view? That is intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJoh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Not really. It hasn't been my experience that on the whole 'Christians' are any more moral than atheists. You'd think the difference would be quite pronounced if the 'Christians' actually followed the teachings of Jesus. I can only deduce that they don't. Many seem to be intoxicated with the idea that all they have to do is profess belief that Jesus died ...[text shortened]... eryone's sins, which of course is contrary to what Jesus taught. It's really quite sad.
Originally posted by josephwYou don't need to pull the trigger yourself for an action to be suicidal. Knowingly putting yourself in harm's way, with the express intention of being killed is suicidal. Jumping in front of a moving train won't kill you (the train hitting you will though), but it's still considered a suicidal action. Jesus knowingly, willingly, put himself in a position where he would be killed. It was his express intention to be killed, apparently. If that's not suicide, what is??
No, it was sacrificial.
Like you said yourself, [b]"...he effectively put himself in harms way by being in the place where he knew he'd be arrested."
Since you don't believe the story you should at least acknowledge the facts. Why try to reinterpret it to suit your world view? That is intellectually dishonest.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat's the difference between a sacrifice & suicide? An epistemic gulf ...
You don't need to pull the trigger yourself for an action to be suicidal. Knowingly putting yourself in harm's way, with the express intention of being killed is suicidal. Jumping in front of a moving train won't kill you (the train hitting you will though), but it's still considered a suicidal action. Jesus knowingly, willingly, put himself in a pos ...[text shortened]... . It was his express intention to be killed, apparently. If that's not suicide, what is??
But so what? Socrates drank the hemlock because he thought it was the right thing to do (he could have escaped). How does the manner of his dying affect the value of his (reported) teachings?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI knew I should have stayed in bed. lol
You don't need to pull the trigger yourself for an action to be suicidal. Knowingly putting yourself in harm's way, with the express intention of being killed is suicidal. Jumping in front of a moving train won't kill you (the train hitting you will though), but it's still considered a suicidal action. Jesus knowingly, willingly, put himself in a pos ...[text shortened]... . It was his express intention to be killed, apparently. If that's not suicide, what is??
Come on now! Don't twist it up. You know as well as I do that we're not talking about an ordinary man. It's clear from the record, whether one believes it or not, that Jesus could have easily walked away. But he didn't. He allowed himself to be crucified on our behalf. That is the fact of the record. On can say it was suicide, but if Jesus could have prevented it then it wasn't.
If I jump off a ten story building it is suicide because after I jump it's too late. Jesus could have stopped the whole show moments before his death. But he chose not to out of obedience to his father.
Remember, "God so loved the world.."?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt doesn't. But if Socrates had risen from the grave it sure would!
What's the difference between a sacrifice & suicide? An epistemic gulf ...
But so what? Socrates drank the hemlock because he thought it was the right thing to do (he could have escaped). How does the manner of his dying affect the value of his (reported) teachings?
It's the resurrection of Jesus that changes everything isn't it?
I know, I know, you don't believe in the resurrection.