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

[Bubbles]

Not sure why I think what? You seem to want to argue that Jesus only wanted the nice things done in his name, no true Scotsman fallacy? Why are you wanting to cherry pick? It's a bit hypocritical to me to say 'anything I think is good done in the name of JC is all fine, any bad stuff done in his name, nothing to do with it'.

Not really.

IMO someone is only responsible for what they set out to inspire others to do.

We only know what Jesus taught, from the bible.

He taught others to turn the other cheek love their neighbours and their enemy, not commit genoside or some other atrocity. 

Or maybe you think Jesus taught " bad stuff"

Which bad stuff do you think he taught?

Yes I think Jesus only wanted people to do good things in his name.

That's because I think he thought he represented the good things.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really.

IMO someone is only responsible for what they set out to inspire others to do.

We only know what Jesus taught, from the bible.

He taught others to turn the other cheek love their neighbours and their enemy, not commit genoside or some other atrocity. 

Or maybe you think Jesus taught " bad stuff"

Which bad stuff do you think he taught?

I am not saying what he taught you are, and you are off on a whole No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of people who have said they follow JC who argue his teachings allow them to do things you think are bad. Why are you right? And if his teachings 'inspired' them to do wrong as you see it how can you say they are wrong without falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy?

[Sassy]

It is hard to imagine how we will react when confronted with the true reality in discovering God's perfect love and the evil deceptions of the Devil.

It is wasted on those posting today. As you can see from the replies they haven't a clue what the return of Christ would mean for them or for others like them.

They don't examine themselves or care how they appear to others. They are not bothered if they offend believers or anyone else.
The only thing they will regret is that Christ's return will show them their own heart and their own failings.
Worse still how their mockery and insult was really them amassing to their own misery when Christ returned.
Most atheists and pagans have themselves the 'me' at the centre of their lives.. It is all about them and they can't and won't let anyone else be at the centre of their lives. Till they find on that day they allowed themselves to be like Satan.

The same outlook of wanting to be like God in their own lives. The same as Adam and Eve who fell hook, line and sinker believing God withholding the best part for himself. In truth God is the best part in life for mankind. They just never saw/see it.

[Sassy]

I don't believe anyone here would seriously want to kill Jesus, despite the cheeky stuff posted earlier in the thread.
However, if he did come back in the flesh, which is not universally believed, it's highly likely that he would be viewed with great suspicion, as before, because people are and have always been naturally sceptical and suspicious.

When Christ returns it is too late...

Who would there be to be sceptical or suspicious? How can his return on the clouds be anything but the dawn of truth that Christ was the Son of God and it is TOO LATE to change your mind?

[Sassy]

With my modest dunce biblical critic hat on, I could say that the real historical Jesus never believed that he himself would return. He talked of a personage called "The Son of Man" who would soon appear to announce the winding-up of history. The gospel writers, and of course all subsequent strands of Christian theology (until recent times) have of course tended to conflate the two. But even in the gospels there are texts that give a strong impression that Jesus thought the 'Son of Man' (the judgment figure written of in Daniel) was some spiritual personage quite distinct from himself.

You need to take more water with it and stop changing what is written in the bible...

[Bubbles]

I am not saying what he taught you are, and you are off on a whole No True Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of people who have said they follow JC who argue his teachings allow them to do things you think are bad. Why are you right? And if his teachings 'inspired' them to do wrong as you see it how can you say they are wrong without falling into the No True Scotsman fallacy?

I can only give my answer, as I see it.

I don't really see that Jesus taught anything that allowed the Spanish Inquisition or the crusades for example.

It's not the one true Scotsman fallacy because I accept others interpret the teachings in the bible differently and I'm not saying it because I'm a Christian.

Jesus, the human being, taught things that were quite pacifist really, turning the other cheek etc.

If you want to murder and kill others or keep slaves, you have to dig into the OT to do it.

A Christian who justifies bad actions in Jesus name, usually doesn't use Jesus at all, but the OT.

The only way I see Jesus as responsible, is based on his teachings only.

Just like I consider Mohammed totally responsible for what he taught.

You have Jesus the person, and Mohammed the person.

I see Jesus as a lot more peaceful than I see Mohammed.

I have the same sources as everyone else, no one has to be a believer in anything.

Jesus taught turning the other cheek, Mohammed didn't. Mohammed's teachings seemed to be more about honour and was more warlike.

IMO Both are responsible for the things that they actually taught not for the accumulated crap that was attached to the religion.

If I chose to murder someone, in the name of Nearly Sane, you are not responsible for it, just because I use your name, unless you are shown to have been implicated or taught something that reasonably caused it to happen.

I don't think the teachings of Jesus, teach atrocities, and I don't see him as having any more control of what happened after his death, than you or I.

[Nearly Sane]

I can only give my answer, as I see it.

I don't really see that Jesus taught anything that allowed the Spanish Inquisition or the crusades for example.

It's not the one true Scotsman fallacy because I accept others interpret the teachings in the bible differently and I'm not saying it because I'm a Christian.

Jesus, the human being, taught things that were quite pacifist really, turning the other cheek etc.

If you want to murder and kill others or keep slaves, you have to dig into the OT to do it.

No, this is exactly a No True Scotsman since while you are accepting that others interpret things differently, you are saying they are incorrect and aren't being influenced by being Christian. If you want to say the good is inspired by Christianity, then the corollary is so is the evil.

[Stranger]

If you want to murder and kill others or keep slaves, you have to dig into the OT to do it.

That was a different god, was it?

[Bubbles]

That was a different god, was it?

No, it was a history of the nation of the Jews and how they interpreted God and his/her relevance to their lives.

It's as much a political commentary as anything else.

[Bubbles]

No, this is exactly a No True Scotsman since while you are accepting that others interpret things differently, you are saying they are incorrect and aren't being influenced by being Christian. If you want to say the good is inspired by Christianity, then the corollary is so is the evil.

That's the problem.

You think I'm saying the good that was inspired by Christianity should be acknowledged but the evil done in its name shouldn't , I'm not.

The teachings of Jesus doesn't equal Christianity.

Jesus wasn't a Christian.

What I'm actually saying is that Jesus, who appears to have been Jewish shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a religion called Christianity.

He should only be judged on his own teachings and doings, not on other peoples.

As far I can see, the teachings of Jesus were basically humanitarian ones.

Even whether he intended to start a new religion is debatable.

[Stranger]

No, it was a history of the nation of the Jews and how they interpreted God and his/her relevance to their lives.

It's as much a political commentary as anything else.

So, they got god all wrong?

[Stranger]

PS

Rose, Got any further on that (not necessarily materialistic) methodology, yet....

[Bubbles]

So, they got god all wrong?

Or their understanding increased over time.

Does it matter?

[Bubbles]

PS

Rose, Got any further on that (not necessarily materialistic) methodology, yet....

What do you mean?

Have you got me muddled with someone else?

Were you having a problem with your methodology ?

Why do I feel you think I'm a Christian ?

[Stranger]

Have you got me muddled with someone else?

Yes, sorry, my bad. 

Trying to do two things at once.

[Bubbles]

An essay about Jesus from Richard Dawkins

I am no memetic engineer, and I have very little idea how to increase the numbers of the super nice and spread their memes through the meme pool. The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan. 'Atheists for Jesus' would grace a T-shirt. There is no strong reason to choose Jesus as icon, rather than some other role model from the ranks of the super nice such as Mahatma Gandhi (not the odiously self-righteous Mother Teresa, heavens no). I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time. And perhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might be just what is needed to kick start the meme of super niceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment?

I think a reborn Jesus would wear the T-shirt. It has become a commonplace that, were he to return today, he would be appalled at what is being done in his name, by Christians ranging from the Catholic Church to the fundamentalist Religious Right. Less obviously but still plausibly, in the light of modern scientific knowledge I think he would see through supernaturalist obscurantism. But of course, modesty would compel him to turn his T-shirt around: Jesus for Atheists.

https://www.rationalresponders.com/atheists_for_jesus_a_richard_dawkins_essay

The teachings of Jesus don't equal Christianity.

At least Richard Dawkins can see it.

 

So R D wouldn't kill him, just get him to wear a T shirt   

[Alan Burns]

I think it was Socrates who said that if a perfect person appeared people would want to kill them.

Plato in his Republic argues:
Righteousness is often praised for the rewards it brings - honour, popularity, and the like - but that to see it in its true nature we must separate it from all these, strip it naked.  He asks us therefore to imagine a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness.  We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged and finally impaled. 

[floo]

Plato in his Republic argues:
Righteousness is often praised for the rewards it brings - honour, popularity, and the like - but that to see it in its true nature we must separate it from all these, strip it naked.  He asks us therefore to imagine a perfectly righteous man treated by all around him as a monster of wickedness.  We must picture him, still perfect, while he is bound, scourged and finally impaled. 

No one perfect has ever lived, including Jesus.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

When Christ returns it is too late...

Who would there be to be sceptical or suspicious? How can his return on the clouds be anything but the dawn of truth that Christ was the Son of God and it is TOO LATE to change your mind?

Why would it be too late!

If Christ arriving on a cloud did reveal the truth to me. Then I would believe the truth. Why the arbitrary cut off date?

[Shaker]

How much of this discussion is predicated on making Jesus in one's own image, as every one is compelled to do in such a thought experiment?

Would a first-century Jew transplanted to the twenty-first century world - taking the scenario at face value - not look like what we now regard as a raving fundamentalist zealot?

[ippy]

No one perfect has ever lived, including Jesus.

Wait a minute Floo!

ippy

[Hope]

How much of this discussion is predicated on making Jesus in one's own image, as every one is compelled to do in such a thought experiment?

I suppose you may predicate the discussion on making Jeus in your own image, but many Christians woulod regard the situation as the reverse.

Would a first-century Jew transplanted to the twenty-first century world - taking the scenario at face value - not look like what we now regard as a raving fundamentalist zealot?

No, he'd probably look like what we would now regard as a Jew whose family has lived in Palestine for centuries.

[floo]

Wait a minute Floo!

ippy

Sorry, with the exception of Ippy!

[Shaker]

I suppose you may predicate the discussion on making Jeus in your own image, but many Christians woulod regard the situation as the reverse.

They may well do, but Christians are after all the masters of making Jesus in their own image, making a contradictory and/or ambiguous gaggle of texts depict Jesus as saying whatever it is they want him to have said. They've had two thousand years of practice at it.

No, he'd probably look like what we would now regard as a Jew whose family has lived in Palestine for centuries.

Why?

[Brownie]

Hope did say ''probably''.  I've never thought about how he would look.  Sass believes he will come in glory in clouds which is what is written by John in Revelation.  I have mixed feelings, Jesus could have meant the Holy Spirit.  If he does return in the flesh (not descending on a cloud), I doubt anyone would recognise him.