Jesus seems to hate some things. Do you? Is hate good?

Jesus seems to hate some things. Do you? Is hate good?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Jesus seems to be saying that he is promoting division and war with a number of his sayings that pit father against son and brother against brother.

Jesus advocated division, war and hate; even as some think he preached to love our enemies.

Did Jesus hate and is hate thus a good character trait?

Regards
DL

I don't see a problem with the trait. Jesus hates inanimate objects as you say yourself ... Things ... not human beings.  I hate it when it rains while I'm in my best suit or stub my toe for example. "Ouch!"
 Jesus would hate what people do that is seen unrighteous and harmful.  

This can be applied using "love" in the same way for inanimate objects or eventual conditions. Oddly... enough to hurt another human being for example; one person scratches another person's most loved ferrari (perhaps more loved than the wife so to speak).

A trait with the love of money, power, and things especially on the detriment of others is what Jesus hates.

Jesus' hate did not at things, in which I included people, so don't try to garble my post with semantics.

Note. http://biblehub.com/luke/19-27.htm

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Do you see Jesus as slaying those he professes to love?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Ah I see ..  this was a parable all about a King and not Jesus himself.

Jsmythe wrote:Ah I see ..  this was a parable all about a King and not Jesus himself.

Pffft.

What a cop out.

What do you think Jesus would be saying to the souls he sends to hell?

Will he be telling them how much he loves them as he kills when he could cure?

Regards
DL

How do you know jesus was even a real person and not just a character in a story? Since the evidence for Jesus's existence is arguable and there is nothing substantial to say he was real, the whole of christianity could be a farce. In which case, we may have perpetrated the greatest crimes against humanity that the world has ever seen in the name of a non-existent person.

Greatest I am wrote:

Pffft.

What a cop out.

I was merely highlighting the correct context.

What do you think Jesus would be saying to the souls he sends to hell?

Will he be telling them how much he loves them as he kills when he could cure?

Regards
DL

Probably say tearfully and painfully to the "evil" doers, " I warned you so many times why did you not take heed?"
I always heard prevention was better than cure in a manner of speaking. Live a humble and righteous way ... wash your hands before you eat your greens. you know the rest

snowyflake wrote:How do you know jesus was even a real person and not just a character in a story? Since the evidence for Jesus's existence is arguable and there is nothing substantial to say he was real, the whole of christianity could be a farce. In which case, we may have perpetrated the greatest crimes against humanity that the world has ever seen in the name of a non-existent person.

Hello Snowy,

Its been a while. Well for example ; Bart Erhman a leading historian who usually debates Christians says himself  that there is more written on Jesus than anyone else in His time, including Ceasar. Erhman like a majority of scholars have no doubt Jesus existed.

snowyflake wrote:How do you know jesus was even a real person and not just a character in a story? Since the evidence for Jesus's existence is arguable and there is nothing substantial to say he was real, the whole of christianity could be a farce. In which case, we may have perpetrated the greatest crimes against humanity that the world has ever seen in the name of a non-existent person.

How much credence can anyone attach to a story that claims the most important person who ever lived had not one single word written by anyone about him until decades after he supposedly died? The supernatural claims are simply completely unevidenced and beyond any reasonable credence, being made during an epoch of extreme superstition and ignorance, and which have been so obviously edited and embellished since by organised religions. The primary goal of the council of Nicaea was not to rigorously test the truth of the claims made after all.

Jsmythe wrote:Bart Erhman a leading historian who usually debates Christians says himself  that there is more written on Jesus than anyone else in His time, including Ceasar. Erhman like a majority of scholars  have no doubt Jesus existed.

There were contemporary historians who wrote about Caesar, and the evidence converged from multiple sources, not all Roman. As well as multiple historical counts, there are artefacts such as coins struck with Caesar's image to commemorate battles and triumphs.

There is nothing approaching this for Jesus, not one single word written about him by any contemporary historian during his entire life. The gospels were written decades after Jesus was supposed to have died, and the authorship are either known fakes or cannot be reliably tied to the authors claimed in the biblical accounts. Even if Jesus did exist as an historical figure this tells us nothing about the validity of the claims made about him, and obviously have no bearing on the supernatural claims, which without evidence commensurate to them are worthless. Bart Ehrman is an atheist as well, if you're going to cite his expertise here then this is something of a double edged sword.

Jsmythe wrote:
Hello Snowy,

Its been a while. Well for example; Bart Erhman a leading historian who usually debates Christians says himself that there is more written on Jesus than anyone else in His time, including Ceasar. Erhman like a majority of scholars  have no doubt Jesus existed.

Actually that's not true. There is no written history of jesus, either during his life or afterward. What was written about is easily discredited. Richard Carrier is a historian who wrote on the historicity of jesus. Please take the time to watch the lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

The point is, there is so much room for doubt. How can you trust something that has so much room for doubt? No contemporary historian wrote about jesus during his life. Why not? He was the topic of discussion of King Herod according to the bible, yet no records exist either Jewish or Roman of his existence. And like all good stories, they get repeated and embellished until someone actually believes they are real. We don't know and since that doubt is there, I can easily disregard the existence of a character in a story.

Nice to see you too,

snowyflake wrote:How do you know jesus was even a real person and not just a character in a story? Since the evidence for Jesus's existence is arguable and there is nothing substantial to say he was real, the whole of christianity could be a farce. In which case, we may have perpetrated the greatest crimes against humanity that the world has ever seen in the name of a non-existent person.

Gnostic Christians like me see all the biblical characters as archetypes and mythical and do not believe they ever existed as described.

Supernatural thinking, to us, is the realm of fools.

Regards
DL

Oops.

Jsmythe wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:What do you think Jesus would be saying to the souls he sends to hell?

Will he be telling them how much he loves them as he kills when he could cure?

Probably say tearfully and painfully to the "evil" doers, " I warned you so many times why did you not take heed?"
I always heard prevention was better than cure in a manner of speaking. Live a humble and righteous way ... wash your hands before you eat your greens. you know the rest

So you think it moral to kill when you can cure.

Typical Christian immorality.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Gnostic Christians like me see all the biblical characters as archetypes and mythical and do not believe they ever existed as described.

Supernatural thinking, to us, is the realm of fools.

Then what's the point of calling yourself a gnostic christian?

The point is that I see their ideology as the best.

It follows Jesus' thinking that frees us from foolish supernatural thinking and idol worship of the immoral mainstream Gods.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

This link expands on that theme of being a brethren to Jesus.



Regards
DL

The point is that I see their ideology as the best.

Exodus 21
21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Judges 21:10-24
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.”  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

I'm not sure biblical "ideology" is admirable, or even remotely moral. There may be some things in the bible that are moral, and some that are profound, but then that's because humans are capable of being both moral and profound, it is in no way exclusively derived from religious belief.

The idea of hell, introduced by gentle Jesus meek and mild btw, is about as heinous an idea ever imagined.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

I was referring to Gnostic Christian ideology, not the Christian slave holding ideology. It, like Islam's ideology, is not a moral ideology as they have both produces intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions.

Gnostic Christianity's ideology is that of Universalism and equality of all people.

Regards
DL

An ideology based on subjective interpretation or cherry picking archaic religious texts might just as easily ignore religion all together and admit their morals are derived from their intellects evolved ability to empathise with others and to reason through complex moral dichotomies.

If a person can sort moral rectitude from terpitude in the bible they can apply the same ability without it and free themeselves from the baggage of iron and bronze age "morality".

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD.

No argument against this for sure, but you forget that theists are not in religions for their moral value. They are in them to appease their tribal needs.

Why else would they follow what are demonstrably immoral and repugnant Gods and ideologies that make no moral sense?

The best definition of faith is not wanting to know the truth about the evil characteristics of the Gods.

Regards
DL

you forget that theists are not in religions for their moral value.

I'm not sure this is true tbh, I'm sure many theists are motivated by the idea they are acting morally. I just wonder why if they cherry pick religions dogma and doctrine they can't see they are creating their own morality anyway, and don't need religion to do this or belief in a deity.

Why else would they follow what are demonstrably immoral and repugnant Gods and ideologies that make no moral sense?

Obviously because they don't see it that way. This for me is the danger of subjugating your own moral responsibility, your actions and your moral judgement & reasoning in favour of faith in religious beliefs and divine diktat that are derived from the iron and bronze age, as this comes with baggage no decent person should accept in the 21st century. As much as I abhor Jihadists and the Westborough Baptist church (as 2 extreme examples) if you believe either the Bible or the Koran is the inerrant word of God then no one can argue that their claims do not more accurately reflect what those books teach than liberal tolerant theists who ignore or rationalise the obvious immorality they contain.

The idea a perfect deity made moral commandments that have dated so badly they have been outstripped by a few hundred years of human moral evolution is absurdly illogical to me of course.

The best definition of faith is not wanting to know the truth about the evil characteristics of the Gods.

The best definition of faith in a religious context is in the OED,

Noun
Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Faith then is a reason people use to justify belief in something they don't have proper evidence for. Hardly a good basis for anyone to build their morality on IMHO.

By comparison you can explain the validity of the golden rule to a small child and they'd understand why it makes sense. Sam Harris's new book "The Moral Landscape" argues that science and scientific facts can inform the basis of our morality, and that religion cannot. I've not finished it yet but he makes some compelling arguments.

Sam Harris is good at showing that pure intellectual thought on moral issues, where we can ignore a Gods dictates, is superior to theistic morality and law.

Secularists already know this as they know that their laws, the law of the land in most countries, is superior to theistic laws.

That is why they and the religionists live under them while ignoring theistic laws.

In the case of theists, we have a bit of intelligent though within their otherwise delusional thinking.

I doubt if you and I can ever fully understand how one can live in what I see as a hypocritical or conflicted state.

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

you forget that theists are not in religions for their moral value.

I'm not sure this is true tbh,

Consider that theists know they are intolerant, homophobic and misogynous and do not particularly want to change those ways.

I see that as them putting their tribal associations before their morals.

Note the same mind set for those, who before the last U.S. election, said they were going to hold their noses as they voted the party line and vote for Trump.

That is a political example of what the religious do. They ignore their morals for the safety of the tribe. Religions and politics are all tribal groups and the tribal needs trump moral actions.

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

How much credence can anyone attach to a story that claims the most important person who ever lived had not one single word written by anyone about him until decades after he supposedly died? The supernatural claims are simply completely unevidenced and beyond any reasonable credence, being made during an epoch of extreme superstition and ignorance, and which have been so obviously edited and embellished since by organised religions. The primary goal of the council of Nicaea was not to rigorously test the truth of the claims made after all.

But its quite understandable to take into account that any acknowledgement by recording the events of Jesus, His teachings, His healings, and His followers would be quite "counter" to the "ruling status" of Caesar and the whole Roman empire who also worshipped pagan gods. This would be quite contradictary to their traditions and customs.

Even as you mentioned above; What is a few decades when history is known to be written about after the mentioned event(s)? Theres no contradiction here with this regard. Besides ... people that were around with Jesus then would still be alive even decades later.

To believe that would take a leap of blind faith.

Why would you want to do so for what is demonstrably an immoral person, given his immoral moral tenants like his no-divorce rule and his quite un-just substitutionary atonement law?



Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

There were contemporary historians who wrote about Caesar, and the evidence converged from multiple sources, not all Roman. As well as multiple historical counts, there are artefacts such as coins struck with Caesar's image to commemorate battles and triumphs.

There is nothing approaching this for Jesus, not one single word written about him by any contemporary historian during his entire life. The gospels were written decades after Jesus was supposed to have died, and the authorship are either known fakes or cannot be reliably tied to the authors claimed in the biblical accounts. Even if Jesus did exist as an historical figure this tells us nothing about the validity of the claims made about him, and obviously have no bearing on the supernatural claims, which without evidence commensurate to them are worthless. Bart Ehrman is an atheist as well, if you're going to cite his expertise here then this is something of a double edged sword.

The artifacts elements of Caesar are coin copies of copies throughout the Roman empire - "Just one image theme. It is also unlikely that Caesar set foot in all of the empire let alone be seen and witnessed in all of those places of the empire but He would obviously have statues all over the place, being that he was quite a rich and powerful fellow compared to a poor penniless carpenter but still became incredibly well known.

I used Bart Ehrman for the very reason that he is an atheist-agnostic rather than one from a theist background.

Jsmythe wrote:[

I used Bart Ehrman for the very reason that he is an atheist-agnostic rather than one from a theist background.

Ehrman was a fundamentalist when he began his studies but saw the light after a while.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Jsmythe wrote:[

I used Bart Ehrman for the very reason that he is an atheist-agnostic rather than one from a theist background.

Ehrman was a fundamentalist when he began his studies but saw the light after a while.

Regards
DL

I wouldn't doubt it.

(Oops gotta get to polling station. You done yours yet G ? )
Later

Jsmythe wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Ehrman was a fundamentalist when he began his studies but saw the light after a while.

Regards
DL

I wouldn't doubt it.

(Oops gotta get to polling station. You done yours yet G ? )
Later

No. I am a Canadian but wish you well.

I am normally on the left but they have been letting me down lately by showing their fear of confronting Islam and their foul ideology.

Immigration is going to escalate thanks to climate change and all countries who taker in Muslims will have to go through the terrorism that your country has been plagued with if we do not get Islam to revue and modernize their slave holding ideology.

Regards
DL