Crosswords3 mins ago
The Teachings Of Jesus Christ.
52 Answers
Could you possibly imagine any teaching that would surpass the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland - "Jesus did say we who follow Him would be mocked. He was right."
Fraudulent people and/or those claiming to be prophets often say such things. It makes some people think that the person making whatever claims they are making seem genuine. David Koresh said similar things. As did Jim Jones.
Claiming that your leader said you'd be mocked for believing in him and then being actually mocked for doing so does not validate your belief system.
Fraudulent people and/or those claiming to be prophets often say such things. It makes some people think that the person making whatever claims they are making seem genuine. David Koresh said similar things. As did Jim Jones.
Claiming that your leader said you'd be mocked for believing in him and then being actually mocked for doing so does not validate your belief system.
Theland - "Try reading about him [Jesus]."
What makes you think that people who don't believe in the Christian god haven't read about Jesus? Do you really think that if I, or any other atheist reads the bible, that we would become converts to your faith?
It may surprise you to know that a great many atheists grew up as theists. They believed because they were told to believe. Their parents told them god was real; their friends told them the same; their teachers reinforced the message. They read their bibles, they went to church, they said their prayers. However, once they became adults and free thinking individuals, many of them questioned the stories they were told as children. Some of them started to ask difficult questions. They questioned the contradictions and absurdities presented to them in the bible as facts.
They came to the conclusion that the entire edifice of belief is a sham.
They became atheists.
Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that if we'd only just read about Jesus we'd all suddenly 'see the light'.
We've read about Jesus. We've read the stories, the lies, the contradictions and the absurdities and we've concluded that it simply cannot be, and therefore is not, true.
What makes you think that people who don't believe in the Christian god haven't read about Jesus? Do you really think that if I, or any other atheist reads the bible, that we would become converts to your faith?
It may surprise you to know that a great many atheists grew up as theists. They believed because they were told to believe. Their parents told them god was real; their friends told them the same; their teachers reinforced the message. They read their bibles, they went to church, they said their prayers. However, once they became adults and free thinking individuals, many of them questioned the stories they were told as children. Some of them started to ask difficult questions. They questioned the contradictions and absurdities presented to them in the bible as facts.
They came to the conclusion that the entire edifice of belief is a sham.
They became atheists.
Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that if we'd only just read about Jesus we'd all suddenly 'see the light'.
We've read about Jesus. We've read the stories, the lies, the contradictions and the absurdities and we've concluded that it simply cannot be, and therefore is not, true.
Some one said, on this thread "…If I were the son of god, I think I would denounced (sp) slavery. Slavery's quite a big no-no today and yet;' then goes on to give an exposition on slavery… however, this site: https:/
Granted, the site is essentially a Christian site, however that doesn't diminish the clearly presented and well referenced factual background of the historical aspects of Biblical "slavery"...
Granted, the site is essentially a Christian site, however that doesn't diminish the clearly presented and well referenced factual background of the historical aspects of Biblical "slavery"...
Clanad - "... Granted, the site is essentially a Christian site..."
And so is highly partisan with regards to anything negative being suggested about christianity.
Look, we get that christians are embarrassed about slavery being endorsed in the bible and by the fact that its prohibition is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments and that Jesus failed to denounce it when he had a golden opportunity to do so... we get it.
It's a shame that the son of god didn't explicitly condemn this horrific, barbaric practice. But that doesn't diminish the fact that Jesus didn't denounce it. It took the likes of William Wilberforce (himself a christian) to promote the notion that slavery was wrong, immoral and unjust to bring about a paradigm shift in public opinion.
The fact the an abolitionist such as Wilberforce was a christian doesn't change the fact that the bible fails to condemn the practice.
And so is highly partisan with regards to anything negative being suggested about christianity.
Look, we get that christians are embarrassed about slavery being endorsed in the bible and by the fact that its prohibition is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments and that Jesus failed to denounce it when he had a golden opportunity to do so... we get it.
It's a shame that the son of god didn't explicitly condemn this horrific, barbaric practice. But that doesn't diminish the fact that Jesus didn't denounce it. It took the likes of William Wilberforce (himself a christian) to promote the notion that slavery was wrong, immoral and unjust to bring about a paradigm shift in public opinion.
The fact the an abolitionist such as Wilberforce was a christian doesn't change the fact that the bible fails to condemn the practice.
My goodness birdie… having presented a site that clearly explains what the Greek and Hebrew (as well as Aramaic) words translated into English for slavery actually mean. The sites presented by yourself and others are highly partisan and will not recognize historical context and therefore, is supposed to be 'embarassing' to Christians. I, once again was offering a possibility to examine, in its entirety, a subject that has multi-faceted but factual explanations in hopes of reaching some kind of mutual understanding, but, clearly, that's out of the question…
If the subject were anything other than Christianity based, people would present both sides and sometimes come away with a greater understanding of the context… which is always a major consideration in any historical writing...
If the subject were anything other than Christianity based, people would present both sides and sometimes come away with a greater understanding of the context… which is always a major consideration in any historical writing...
Clanad -
The article you link is an absurd demonstration of semantics. It attempts to differentiate between 'slavery' and 'harsh slavery' to make it seem as though one of those conditions is 'better' than the other. In both of these, slavery means that a person is paid nothing for their labour. They are fed, watered and housed, nothing more. One of them is routinely beaten and one of them is not. Neither one can leave of their own volition. Neither has any chance of escape from their 'social' standing. Ego, both are slaves.
From your linked article - "... Conclusion: 1. Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies; they were more like servants or bondservants..."
Or 'slaves' as they are commonly now known.
Quite frankly I'm astonished that you've posted this as some kind of defence of biblical teachings. I'd have kept quiet if I were you.
The article you link is an absurd demonstration of semantics. It attempts to differentiate between 'slavery' and 'harsh slavery' to make it seem as though one of those conditions is 'better' than the other. In both of these, slavery means that a person is paid nothing for their labour. They are fed, watered and housed, nothing more. One of them is routinely beaten and one of them is not. Neither one can leave of their own volition. Neither has any chance of escape from their 'social' standing. Ego, both are slaves.
From your linked article - "... Conclusion: 1. Slaves under the Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies; they were more like servants or bondservants..."
Or 'slaves' as they are commonly now known.
Quite frankly I'm astonished that you've posted this as some kind of defence of biblical teachings. I'd have kept quiet if I were you.
In our post Christian secular world, slavery is alive and kicking, and grows in strength.
What else would you call austerity, low pay, zero hours contracts, short term tenancies, high rents, food banks, the list goes on and on and on.
So slavery as described in the Bible, DOES need to be considered in its historical context. Or do you profit from modern day slavery?
What else would you call austerity, low pay, zero hours contracts, short term tenancies, high rents, food banks, the list goes on and on and on.
So slavery as described in the Bible, DOES need to be considered in its historical context. Or do you profit from modern day slavery?
Theland - "... What else would you call austerity, low pay, zero hours contracts, short term tenancies, high rents, food banks..."
I wouldn’t call any of these things 'slavery' simply because they don't fit the description of the word as defined by dictionaries.
However, I abhor zero hours contracts, low pay, the necessity for food banks and overly high rents. Austerity in the UK is (in my opinion) too harsh and I don't know enough about short term tenancies to comment.
However, not one of these has anything to do with slavery as it commonly understood. Not one. Your analogy simple does not hold water.
I wouldn’t call any of these things 'slavery' simply because they don't fit the description of the word as defined by dictionaries.
However, I abhor zero hours contracts, low pay, the necessity for food banks and overly high rents. Austerity in the UK is (in my opinion) too harsh and I don't know enough about short term tenancies to comment.
However, not one of these has anything to do with slavery as it commonly understood. Not one. Your analogy simple does not hold water.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Music7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
