I've seen Jesus Christ Superstar a bunch of times and he seemed like kind of a dick.

He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

Alan B wrote:

scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

I think he was being sarcastic for those who believed he could 'do' miracles.

You’re right. I am very sarcastic and everyone knows how perfect I am.

I guess Jesus in "OK" in the NT, but he's no Atticus Finch.

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

He could perhaps be described as a perfect arsehole, but that's about the only sense in which I'd use the word.

LucidFlight wrote: — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride,

He'd look like a televangelist. Probably do pretty well, making cripples walk and dead men rise and all that. Ka-CHING!

I don't know if he was perfect, but he apparently had perfect abs.

Jesus abs. Or maybe Kris Kristofferson.

Well Jesus's ring-craft may well have been perfect, but all the "turning the other cheek" malarkey would've been encouraging to his opponents.

Hamster wrote:Well Jesus's ring-craft may well have been perfect, but all the "turning the other cheek" malarkey would've been encouraging to his opponents.

On the other hand, they might have been taken aback when they found out he had brought a sword.

scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

And then there's the whole moneychangers' "overturning the tables" bruhaha... One more example and we have a bonafide history of anger... If only there was someone he could turn to for inner peace? A calming influence. I know his Father was a violent sadistic prick given to anger. Must run in the family. Hmmm... Siddhartha Gautama, perhaps? Rather, Ommmmm.

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Sent from my Kindle

Skinny Puppy wrote:Read Mark 7:15

Yes. That is authoritative. Especially if you combine it with that line from Corinthians about how to use the scriptures.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Dont need to read any fairy stories thank you. We are in fallacy land again.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Dont need to read any fairy stories thank you. We are in fallacy land again.

If one wished to knock Christianity then one needs to use the source material to discredit it. Making things up (or an opinion) doesn’t cut the mustard.

When I was a fundie (and still a teenager) we were told that the most difficult type of people (atheists) that we would encounter (and try to convert) were the ones that knew the Bible forward and backwards because they could fire back at anything we said… and with the authority of the Bible on their side.

One doesn’t have to believe anything that the Bible says, but if one wants to discredit it to a believer, then one needs to know it.

What a complete load of bollocks. The bible has no purpose why discredit something of no worth. You are claiming that this god of yours exists well prove it. I dont have to prove a thing.