If Jesus did come back would you want to kill him?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?

After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.

And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he? 

We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?

[Shaker]

I always prefer the "few stiff words" approach over killing, personally.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

I always prefer the "few stiff words" approach over killing, personally.

Yeah, me too. I guess I was channelling the "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him" line but I'd probably settle for a few stiff words instead. Clearly he's a very naughty boy after all....

[john]

If he were to make the ultimate sacrifice today......

200 hours community service or even life imprisonment doesn't have the same wow factor as crucifixion.

The worlds gone soft.

[Shaker]

And just try putting 200 hours' community service on a chain around your neck.

[bluehillside Retd.]

john,

If he were to make the ultimate sacrifice today......

200 hours community service or even life imprisonment doesn't have the same wow factor as crucifixion.

The worlds gone soft.

Well, presumably the court would take background reports into account - mother violated to conceive him, absentee father, that kind of thing so perhaps community service would be the right option after all?

[floo]

Why would one want to kill him?

[Brownie]

You might find you like him.  Quite a few people did, first time around, and there was illness, war and famine then.  Not to mention the Roman occupation.  Yet Jesus still had fans.

I've just remembered something.  Fiction I know but the last but one episode of Rev had the Rev at a very low ebb, then he meets Jesus (played by Liam Neeson).   He certainly liked him.

[Nearly Sane]

Threads like this make me somewhat sympathetic to the various Christians complaining that it's a bit clique(y) with a hint of having to pass the tough kids smoking and about to ask you for your dinner money. And I know the type of mockery goes on on other boards on here but there is a responsibility that needs to be taken if atheists are in the majority on the boards to at least attempt not to use that in simply empty mockery.


It's not really enough to say you wouldn't do it to the pagan because they don't tell you it's true for you too. There are plenty of Christians on here who have an admirably live and let live approach, who often challenge their fellow Christians and theists on those sort of attitudes. Maybe instead of Beavus and Butthead approach to them, we could drag ourselves into an attempt at dialogue.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

You might find you like him.  Quite a few people did, first time around, and there was illness, war and famine then.  Not to mention the Roman occupation.  Yet Jesus still had fans.

I've just remembered something.  Fiction I know but the last but one episode of Rev had the Rev at a very low ebb, then he meets Jesus (played by Liam Neeson).   He certainly liked him.

Oh I know I might - I see him as a sort of lovable rogue, a bit Terry Thomas. That wouldn't absolve him of the culpable negligence charge though would it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Threads like this make me somewhat sympathetic to the various Christians complaining that it's a bit clique(y) with a hint of having to pass the tough kids smoking and about to ask you for your dinner money. And I know the type of mockery goes on on other boards on here but there is a responsibility that needs to be taken if atheists are in the majority on the boards to at least attempt not to use that in simply empty mockery.


It's not really enough to say you wouldn't do it to the pagan because they don't tell you it's true for you too. There are plenty of Christians on here who have an admirably live and let live approach, who often challenge their fellow Christians and theists on those sort of attitudes. Maybe instead of Beavus and Butthead approach to them, we could drag ourselves into an attempt at dialogue.

I've tried to keep it light, but there's a serious point nonetheless. If some people seriously think a second coming is due, should JC get a free pass when he returns or be challenged on the good he could have done but didn't both the last time around and while he was away? The "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him" line is quite a well-known one after all. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I've tried to keep it light, but there's a serious point nonetheless. If some people seriously think a second coming is due, should JC get a free pass when he returns or be challenged on the good he could have done but didn't both the last time around and while he was away? The "If you see Buddha on the road, kill him" line is quite a well-known one after all.

Except I think the basic point is simply a repetition of the problem of suffering, done to death, I would suggest. And then we have a collection of extracts or bon mots from or inspired by the Life of Brian. I don't see how it attempts to create dialogue and I would suggest your initial lightness is also likely to shut it down.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except I think the basic point is simply a repetition of the problem of suffering, done to death, I would suggest. And then we have a collection of extracts or bon mots from or inspired by the Life of Brian. I don't see how it attempts to create dialogue and I would suggest your initial lightness is also likely to shut it down.

It might, though in my experience it's more likely to lead to someone beginning a post with, "Actually..." and it takes off from there.

The Buddhist angle for example could be an interesting one to explore in the Christian context. Let's see - if it dies it dies, but you never know.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It might, though in my experience it's more likely to lead to someone beginning a post with, "Actually..." and it takes off from there.

The Buddhist angle for example could be an interesting one to explore in the Christian context. Let's see - if it dies it dies, but you never know.

Not of a group of atheists then suddenly go 'hrurr, hrurr, JC idiot, hrurr'. You aren't responsible for how others respond but then responding in the same way backs up the mockery aspect. My complaint was about the whole tone of the entirety of the thread when I posted.

[Hope]

Assume for now that the Big Fella finally showed up a second time around, would you want to kill him - or at least have a few stiff words?

Well, if he was to return for a second time (as he actually promised he would), I'm not sure that any of us would be a position to be having 'a few stiff words', let alone killing him - after all, that will herald the end of times.

After all, first time round he could presumably a least have bothered leaving behind a cure for childhood cancer or fixed it so that earthquakes and tsunamis didn't carry away countless innocent people.

If what I read recently is true, cancer is very much a recent development, reflecting lifestyle and diet.  As for earthquakes and tsunamis, you seem to be asking for a less dynamic planet; which would, in turn, probably hold less oxygen and other important chemicals in its atmosphere.

And while we're about it, what's with sitting on his hands for the last 2,000 years? Surely if he'd just deflected a bit the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand or squished the first flu virus before millions died in the subsequent events his Dad would have approved wouldn't he? 

So, you're arguing that he ought to short-circuit the natural consequences of human and other natural actions?

We punish people in the real world for culpable negligence - why should JC get a free pass if ever he makes it to court?

And who are culpably negligent in this case - humanity? 

[Hope]

... should JC get a free pass when he returns or be challenged on the good he could have done but didn't both the last time around and while he was away?

That assumes, of course, that he didn't and hasn't done good over the last 2000-odd years.  I'd suggest that he would have to be released without charge by any court.  After all, the problems have been caused by humans.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If what I read recently is true, cancer is very much a recent development, reflecting lifestyle and diet. 
[quote/]

the what you have read is rubbish.

[Shaker]

the what you have read is rubbish.

Indeed: http://goo.gl/hCOVq5

[Rhiannon]

And just try putting 200 hours' community service on a chain around your neck.

 

[Shaker]

As for earthquakes and tsunamis, you seem to be asking for a less dynamic planet; which would, in turn, probably hold less oxygen and other important chemicals in its atmosphere.

But an omniscient and omnipotent deity would (a) know how and (b) be able to create a "dynamic planet" without the full panoply of natural disasters, correct? This is already inherent in what those words mean, after all.

But perhaps you don't believe in such a god. Guess we'll never find out, eh?

[Rhiannon]

Except I think the basic point is simply a repetition of the problem of suffering, done to death, I would suggest. And then we have a collection of extracts or bon mots from or inspired by the Life of Brian. I don't see how it attempts to create dialogue and I would suggest your initial lightness is also likely to shut it down.

I hear what you are saying, NS. But actually there's a saying that 'Christians are Christ's hands and feet' and I would be more interested in how anyone thinks they've done and whether anyone thinks Jesus would recognise that in the actions of the church.

I wouldn't bother having a go at him seeing as he's been dead 2,000 years.

[john]

Nearly Sane and Hope

Your pleas for greater sensitivity fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned because of your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

How about you make some concessions to other peoples (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc) point of view for a start.

But you won't will you? You are the only ones who know the truth. Such hypocrisy.

[Nearly Sane]

Nearly Sane and Hope

Your pleas for greater sensitivity fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned because of your insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

How about you make some concessions to other peoples (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc) point of view for a start.

But you won't will you? You are the only ones who know the truth. Such hypocrisy.

What truth do you think I insist I know? Last time I looked was asking for recognition that people know virtually nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

I hear what you are saying, NS. But actually there's a saying that 'Christians are Christ's hands and feet' and I would be more interested in how anyone thinks they've done and whether anyone thinks Jesus would recognise that in the actions of the church.

I wouldn't bother having a go at him seeing as he's been dead 2,000 years.

Which is fair enough but not the tone of the OP, and especially not as it was reflected in the first few posts on the thread.

[Rhiannon]

I don't find them especially offensive, and I still have something of my 'offended Christian' radar operational from when I was one. I'm not sure you can condemn an entire thread from four or five posts either.