Mickey Mouse thinks religious belief is.............

by wobble 128 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  Interesting that Conficius taught the importance of devotion to family while Jesus taught that family should be abandoned in order to follow him.

  Jesus taught that family was not above righteousness and love, if your family was doing wrong, you don't follow it.

  Gautama Buddha also lived a bout 400 years before Jesus. His teachings are every bit as impressive and remarkably similar to Jesus'. The similarities are so interesting some scholars have proposed teh idea that Jesus or his followers were guilty of plagerism.

  So what is unique about Jesus teachings that makes you think Confucius and Buddha were just wise men but Jesus' teachings are evidence of divine origin?

  The christian respons, along the lines of Paul and Auggustine, is that the WORD of God ( that became Christ) has made God know BEFORE Christ came, hence the "gentile that knew the law, has the law".

  The "universal truths" that Jesus spoke were correct not because they were universal, but because He made them universal as the Word of God that enter into our word LONG BEFORE the "incarnation" of God did.

  The truths spoke before Christ came were given to those that spoke them from The Word of God.

  So, what makes Jesus's teachings unique above others that taught the same BEFORE Christ did?

  Nothing makes the TEACHINGS unique, Jesus was unique NOT because of his teachings, but because he WAS Divine.

  That may have added extra "credibility" to the teachings but that didn't make them anymore correct then they were before.
• 

  cofty

  Jesus was unique NOT because of his teachings, but because he WAS Divine.

  But if his words do nothing to establish his divinity we seem to be getting cose to a circular argument?
• 

  Qcmbr

  There was a significant branch of the early Christian faith that didn't think Jesus was divine.
• 

  PSacramento

  But if his words do nothing to establish his divinity we seem to be getting cose to a circular argument?

  Perhaps, but his divinity was based, according to the NT, not only on his words but actions and ressurection.

  There was a significant branch of the early Christian faith that didn't think Jesus was divine.

  Indeed and there were some that viewed him as divine but not "deity".
• 

  cofty

  Indeed and there were some that viewed him as divine but not "deity".

  I'm sure that is what John actually meant in John1:1 but that's another thread.
• 

  PSacramento

  I'm sure that is what John actually meant in John1:1 but that's another thread.

  John was speaking about the nature of Logos and that nature was indeed God or divine, but John goes into more detail explaing who and what the word was and came to be, cumulating in Thomas's "The Lord of me and the God of me".

  It took God becoming incarnate for Man to truly "see" God and understand God's will and love for Man.

  But like you said, that is another thread :)
• 

  tec

  Tec love for all is against the natural order and dangerous for individual. You become an enabler of abuse when you turn the other cheek, you emasculate yourself when you seek peace during a time of war

  What natural order?

  And you don't become an enabler of the abuse (you can by not ever stating that it is wrong, or by never attempting to change or stop it). You simply do not resort to the same tactics or abuse being done to you. You can try to change the abuse given you by acting as you wish others would act. By not abusing. By not stooping to that level. By try to teach/lead by e x ample... the same e x ample that you are following from the One who taught you.

  Do you really think that seeking peace during a time of war is an emasculating thing, or did you misspeak? Because if you do think seeking peace (during war especially) is emasculating, then I would say that masculate is the last thing I would want to be.

  and on a scientific point it is impossible to love people you have not met , you are merely misassociating feelings with a non-existent mental construct ( my imagining you is not you .)

  Since you said on a scientific point, do you have scientific evidence of this?

  Because I'm telling you, I can and do love people I have not met. Absolutely; without a doubt. I can even read about something brave that someone did, or of peace, or of love, and I can feel an overwhelming love for that person (those people) without ever having to meet them.

  So I understand if this is true of you; but it is not true of me.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  PSacramento

  RE: Non-violence.

  Two names:

  Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.
• 

  tec

  Off to PT interviews; be back in a bit to discuss Cofty's points.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Qcmbr

  Tec - let me start you on a wonderful google trail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

  You cannot love me since you do not know me. That you may make up mental images about who you think I am and pretend to love that is fine , after all that's the core of god worship ( loving a mental image - not me hehe ) , but I can assure you that you do not know me to love.