I've decided to be like Jesus

I'm going to be like jesus....from here on out, all forum posters who don't "believe" in FreedomSeeker, no matter how moral or good they are (and even if they live in an area where they've never really heard of me), I'm going to see that they get horrifically tortured for a long long time, and kept out of my exclusive country club (just like Jesus does with his country club in the sky.) Why? Because I want to be stuck on myself, like Jesus, so I know what it's like. So I'm afraid to inform you that if you don't believe in me (or Jesus, of course), you forum posters are in for a world of hurt. In other words, don't think....just be afraid...be very afraid.

Which is more correct, "a" or "b"?
a. Jesus and FreedomSeeker under the above-mentioned brilliant plan both would be insane lunatics, or
b. Jesus and FreedomSeeker both have perfectly good plans, and I'm all FOR torturing most of the PF.com posters (most aren't Christian, or believe in FS, I assume.)

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me, right?

 

I like PAIN......bring it on......

- - - Updated - - -

I like PAIN......bring it on......

 

I don't agree with your characterization of Jesus. I see him as a spiritual leader who fought corruption in political and religious institutions. The core of his message is positive and peaceful.

 

If YOU had Jesus/god's alleged powers, would YOU torture Einstein and Gandhi forever, for simply not 'believing' you, even though they did great things for the world and were good moral people (and let billions of Christians - supremacists, apparently - into "heaven")? I bet you're way more moral than Jesus. Are you?
I bet if I had a pet chimp, and said chimp could communicate to us, I bet we'd find that even the primate would not be such an ego-maniac as Jesus. If Jesus is even less moral than a frickin' CHIMP, then no one should worship that sicko.

The Bible says this is what Jesus believes is fair treatment of non-Christians, so your characterization is not Christianity.
Can you condemn Jesus for his immorality?....I believe my chimp can.....

 

It seems you mistake Jesus for hardcore Calvinists. Ah well.

 

Jesus was a free-loader who sponged off of his rich friends. If he needed a place to stay he would simply say that he was going to move in with his targeted host.

 

I think that's generally true, but in the Old Testament when God smote you, you were merely dead. In Christ's kinder, gentler, New Testament if you don't toe the line you burn in Hell foverever.

 

at the risk of getting into politics, which I abhor, where did Jesus get political?

 

Every word he spoke is political - and, incidentally - totally against American capitalist imperialism. Read what Mary sang, read the Sermon on the Mount and look at Acts to see what the Early church did. Inevitable, at a time when low-grade Roman politicians could be elected god by the Senate it got expressed in 'religious' terms. It is our job to translate it into what we can understand.

 

British Imperialism tho...

 

A lot of Christians including myself would disagree with your interpretation of Christ and the New Testament:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_salvation

 

You could go and ask some Christian anarchists opinion on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
Or you can just have a look at passive non-violent resistance as taught by Jesus in action: in the US the most prominent figure practising it would have been Martin Luther King Junior.

 

While British Imperialism wasn't nice either and has unsavoury repercussions to this very day I think Iolo is more concerned with todays Nr 1. imperial power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

 

I don't remember the words "burn in hell forever" ever appearing anywhere in Jesus' speeches. And what if I choose to interpret "heaven" and/or "hell" figuratively instead of literally?

 

You can stand by your interpretation, and I'll stand by mine. Matthew, alone, quotes Christ several times on he perils of Hell. According to Matthew 5:29, Jesus said "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away..It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into Hell."

 

The question is whether the author of Matthew (let alone Jesus) meant the same thing with "γέεννα" (Gehenna) as you (and many Christians) mean with "hell". But feel free to stand with your interpretation of the NT as long as you accept that there are also others.

 

You cannot separate Jesus from the political environment. He was crucified under the authority of the Romans, and the entire background of his life was defined by Roman rule. He may not have spoke specifically to politics, but his actions and speech were politically subversive nonetheless, which is why he was crucified. The story of Pilate imploring the crowd is just hogwash. Pilate was a hardened military man. Jesus was a subversive and Pilate would have executed him without a second thought.

 

Great! DO that. Yes, interpret "heaven" and "hell" figuratively instead of literally. All supernatural stuff in the Bible should be taken as a metaphor/figuratively, and not literally. So to be as CONSISTENT (a good thing) as modern Secular Humanists (the most consistent overall belief system) also treat the THE RESURRECTION metaphorically/figuratively! I believe you are perceptive enough and intelligent enough to do that.

Now that we got that out of the way, you can spend time doing things in life that really make a difference (ie NOT praying)....because if the resurrection is not to be taken literally then Jesus' "resurrection" represents "renewal/rebirth" (which is great), but he didn't really "resurrect" literally, so there's no need to pray to him because it was a metaphor for renewal/rebirth. So celebrate renewal/rebirth, practices Jesus' Golden Rule, give to charity like Jesus admirably said, and of course love thy neighbor. But since the resurrection wasn't literal, you don't need to worry about praying to him or worry about the figurative "hell", either. Welcome to the intellectual freedom that modern Secular Humanism gives you.

 

Of course. As we learned from President Clinton, there are even different interpretations of the word "is."

 

"Render unto Caesar", for example??

 

I wonder why so many Americans are not even aware that the USA is an imperialist nation. Its pretty weird. people got angry with me if I even mentioned it.

 

Literature can’t have been your strongest subject in school if you think that if a text contains a metaphor you have to interpret all of it metaphorically to be ‘consistent’.

Also you seemingly know very little about religion. Which is surprising for somebody who likes to criticize it so much. Most Christians, including the good old official Roman Catholic Church, don’t believe hell to be a physical place that somehow looks like a picture by Hieronymus Bosch. Hell is commonly defined as a state in which you are separated from God, whereas heaven is a state in which you are united with God.
Christians like me don’t believe that anybody will be in the state of hell forever, because eventually Christ will see to it that all of us will be reunited with God, even you.

As for the resurrection: You may be surprised to hear that not all Christians believe in a physical resurrection. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes01.htm) Some are content to believe in a spiritual resurrection, the spirit/soul being the main concern of the Christian faith/most other religions. You know, that’s the thing your hardcore materialist idols don’t believe in. According to them you’re just a heap of cells and that’s it. No more questions asked.

Secular humanism can't have taught you much about the golden rule (a rule, that all major religions came up with long before the concept of secular humanism), if you think it's an apt way to love your neighbours to do your best to insult their innermost beliefs. But as I said: I trust that even you will see the light one day (that was a metaphor).

 

Is it your contention that Our Lady of Eternal Agony and Suppurating Wounds wasn't literally a virgin? Are we to cherry-pick which parts of Church dogma to accept? Should we be able to compartmentalize our minds enough to believe that she was both a virgin and a non-virgin, that there is and is not a Hell, that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and again, there is not, that we should trade an eye for eye and also "turn the other cheek?" Could it be that religionists are a bit schizophrenic?

 

Could you give me an example of what you see as "political", that jesus said?