rationalskepticism.org

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:You mean aside from attacking innocent people in the market?

What innocent people did JC attack? Surely you don't me the con artists who were ripping off
poor people.

I believe their actual descriptions were "merchants and money changers", but thanks for putting your own personal spin on it.

And telling people to abandon their families?

You mean?

Many people were traveling with Jesus. He said to them, 26 “If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life! 27 Whoever will not carry the cross that is given to them when they follow me cannot be my follower.

It seems like he was just telling them how it is - a take it or leave it thing. Now a reasonable person can question the wisdom of following his advice and against the grain social interactions. And this notion of "loving him more than ..." - well I can see how one can view that problematically - especially if one thinks of JC as someone in a normal human state. But fair enough, it might be best for beings in human bodies not to say such things - even if they are true.

Maybe if he phrased it: "Look, if you're going to be as I am then you're going to have to love the way I am more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters, even more than your own life because your family, like my family, will likely think you if you talk and act like me, and running around and doing the things I do is likely going to get you killed. That's what I think he meant to say.

Any way you spin it, he's telling people to abandon their families to follow him. One can certainly question the wisdom of that.

I certainly think one can question the wisdom of doing as he did with the likely consequences that one might expect from doing so. It's not easy to go against the grain of any society. But I don't know if I'd call that a "negative characteristics of Christs behaviour".

And poo-poohing the poor so he could get perfumed?

I think that was more about defending the woman who the disciples were embarrassing than worrying about his odor issues.

Defending the woman by telling his followers that there's no point in helping the poor because they'll always be there. Uh huh.

It doesn't sound like it went down that way to me:

Jesus Anointed at Bethany
3 bAnd while he was at cBethany in the house of Simon the leper,1 as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4 There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii2 and dgiven to the poor.” And they escolded her. 6 But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For fyou always have the poor with you, and whenever gyou want, you can do good for them. But hyou will not always have me. 8 iShe has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand jfor burial. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever kthe gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told lin memory of her.”

Got anything else?

No, I think your strained defense of those is enough.

If that's the worst he did then it's not much to complain about.

Being a rational skeptic can seperate you from your family if they are hell bent on their indefensible religious ideas but would you tell someone to stick to their religious script so that they don't ruffle their family feathers?