Stephen Hawking knows more about heaven than Jesus did.

by moshe 124 Replies latest social current

• 

  PSacramento

  I know that sometimes "we" like to downplay the contributions of Jesus and it is easy to look back with our modern critical eye and say "Should have done this, should have said this, etc", but we also have to be honest and admit that the teachings of Jesus, if nothing else about him, deserve some respect and admiration.

  Sure the message of love each other and the "golden rule" were around before him, but they were never applied to ALL people, just to which ever group it as aimed at and always with some form of recompense attached to it ( typically).

  Fact is, we speak about these things because of Jesus and his followers, not because of what was written in some babylonian ( or other culture) writings that was aimed at a small group of people.

  Even the devil is given his "due"...
• 

  notverylikely

  but we also have to be honest and admit that the teachings of Jesus, if nothing else about him, deserve some respect and admiration.

  Which ones? The love parts was as old as the hills. Those weren't really HIS teachings.

  Sure the message of love each other and the "golden rule" were around before him, but they were never applied to ALL people, just to which ever group it as aimed at and always with some form of recompense attached to it ( typically).

  That's not true. Buddha was teaching the same thing. The Bablyonians said to love your enemy. They did not say"only within this social group" at all. You are creating a distinction where none exists. Jesus' tacit support of slavery shows that HIS message didn't extend that far down either. He only every talked about the people is his social group. He said love all men, never all women. If you want to get all nitpicky, Jesus clearly, if not approved, clearly never disapproved of slavery which wouldn't make sense in the context of his message applying to ALL people and he never said much about women, just men, so if he wasn't an outright misogynist, then at least he approved of the system.
• 

  awildflower

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1270990/Pixie-Dust-pig-bladders-regrows-limbs-wounded-soldiers.html

  Stole this from another thread. This would have been nice to know before Jesus sent all those swine over the edge!

  but we also have to be honest and admit that the teachings of Jesus, if nothing else about him, deserve some respect and admiration.

  PS, agreed.
• 

  notverylikely

  Fact is, we speak about these things because of Jesus and his followers, not because of what was written in some babylonian ( or other culture) writings that was aimed at a small group of people.

  Even the devil is given his "due"...

  OK, so then let's keep going with that. Jesus taught it because others did. Why didn't he give them their due and instead fraudulently claim the message as his own?
• 

  PSacramento

  Which ones? The love parts was as old as the hills. Those weren't really HIS teachings.

  The depends on who you think Jesus was now, doesn't it?

  That's not true. Buddha was teaching the same thing. The Bablyonians said to love your enemy. They did not say"only within this social group" at all. You are creating a distinction where none exists. Jesus' tacit support of slavery shows that HIS message didn't extend that far down either. He only every talked about the people is his social group. He said love all men, never all women. If you want to get all nitpicky, Jesus clearly, if not approved, clearly never disapproved of slavery which wouldn't make sense in the context of his message applying to ALL people and he never said much about women, just men, so if he wasn't an outright misogynist, then at least he approved of the system.

  Now who is creating a distinction where there was none?

  Jesus's message of liberation and euality for ALL was just that, Jesus understood the slave system and the best way to "undermine" it ( Create a notion of equality for all and it will die eventually), Jesus was far more accepting of women and outcasts than anyone before him, womwn played a central role in his ministry and even afterwards.

  OK, so then let's keep going with that. Jesus taught it because others did. Why didn't he give them their due and instead fraudulently claim the message as his own?

  Again, depends of who you think Jesus was.
• 

  PSacramento

  Stole this from another thread. This would have been nice to know before Jesus sent all those swine over the edge!

  He was Jewish ;)
• 

  notverylikely

  The depends on who you think Jesus was now, doesn't it?

  Ding ding ding! We have a winner! No one really knows and hardly ANYONE agrees on who the guy was or what is universal truth was.It seems like it wasn't very "universal".

  Now who is creating a distinction where there was none?

  Exactly my point. If that's how you want to parse what other people said, you shouldn't be surprised when that happens to you. If that's what we are doing, I can do that ALL day long, my man.

  Jesus's message of liberation and euality for ALL was just that, Jesus understood the slave system and the best way to "undermine" it

  Since no one wrote any hearsay that Jesus ever said that, that has to go under the file labeled "Conjecture and Speculation".

  Jesus was far more accepting of women and outcasts than anyone before him, womwn played a central role in his ministry and even afterwards.

  True. It's hard to be a rabble rouser when you are not talking to the rabble.
• 

  PSacramento

  Ding ding ding! We have a winner! No one really knows and hardly ANYONE agrees on who the guy was or what is universal truth was.It seems like it wasn't very "universal".

  Very debatable.

  Exactly my point. If that's how you want to parse what other people said, you shouldn't be surprised when that happens to you. If that's what we are doing, I can do that ALL day long, my man.

  I admire your stamina !

  Since no one wrote any hearsay that Jesus ever said that, that has to go under the file labeled "Conjecture and Speculation".

  Jesus never made any comments in reagdrs to slavery, this is true, but Paul did and to him, " all where equal master or slave".

  When Jesus said that by loving your enemy you would "reap hot coals" on his head, he meant that, in showing our love to those that KNOW they don't deserve it, that, IF they were willing of course, they woudl change and see the truth and beauty in our example.

  Hopefully ;)
• 

  awildflower

  He was Jewish ;)

  Oh well now that explains the mysteries of the universe he he

  Nice try PS
• 

  notverylikely

  Very debatable.

  Not really. There is an astounding lack of agreement on the message. Baptists (with all their branches), Lutheran, Methodist, Catholics (with all their branches), the people that handle the snakes, the JW's, the Millerites, 7th Day, Christadelphians, Jews for Jesus, the people that think Jesus wanted them to be rich....

  Very apparent.

  I admire your stamina!

  Thanks, you too! (heading the jokes off at the pass..."Those aren't pillows!"...."That's not my hand!")

  all where equal master or slave".

  That was in relation to getting to heaven, it wasn't in any way "slavery is bad". And Shelby (AGuest) says Paul wasn't inspired and just spouting off. Who do I believe?

  When Jesus said that by loving your enemy you would "reap hot coals" on his head, he meant that, in showing our love to those that KNOW they don't deserve it, that, IF they were willing of course, they woudl change and see the truth and beauty in our example.

  Hopefully ;)

  I hope that's what he meant too. Otherwise he was being kind of a dick about it.