rationalskepticism.org

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

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.

You mean?




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".

That you speak of abandoning women and children as "going against the grain of society" as if it were some noble act tells everyone everything they need to know about your perspective, I think.

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.”

Then you better read it again, because that's exactly what it says. "Do it some other time when I'm not about to get special treatment" isn't a good argument any way you slice it.

That's not what it says, it says:

For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them.

They didn't need that perfume to go out and do good for the poor.

Well I don't know where you live where convincing people to abandon their families, physical assault and dismissing the poor are no big deal. Around here and pretty much everywhere I've lived, that would be considered extremely shitty behavior.

Around where I live JC doesn't have much of a reputation for "dismissing the poor". And he's generally thought of as being non violent. And pretty much a kind and loving sort of bloke. But, it's true that those who lost profits weren't too happy with how he cut into their profits that day and they seemed to think a death sentence was the appropriate punishment.

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?

The fact that you see not leaving your family high and dry as "sticking to the script" is fucking heinous. Becoming separated from your family because of strong disagreements isn't the same as a guy demanding you abandon your family or else you don't get his special spirit sauce.

It's not like you'll necessarily be the one leaving your family if you decide not to stick to the religious script. Many a religious family can't handle someone questioning if a virgin birth actually happened. Some can't handle saying the earth is billions of years old. For some, evolution is - well forget about it. JC was just pointing out that if you want to break out of a family denial system, you better be prepared for the reality that doing so may also break up your family. That's just the way things work with humans on planet earth, that's not JC's fault - unless you believe he was the creator of all- and then I guess it is.