Conversations with religious types along with some of JG crash course series of late has lead me to rethink my stance on religions and one thing I have found out is that Jesus.....he was pretty awesome pretty much encapsulating DFTBA 2000 years ago. I personally have looked at the bible (pronounced bibbly....eddie Izzard fans, anyone, no?) again and if you strip away the walking on water, the virgin birth, the new stars and any of the other mystical aspects of the life of Jesus his actual messages are as true today as they were ever.
I am in no way considering conversion hence my question do you have to believe in god to follow the teachings of a religion as a good idea?
Thoughts please...I look forward to reading them
Well there are some aspects of Christianity that you obviously can't believe without god but unless that's the case then yeah you can believe in what Jesus taught.
I have a man crush on this guy so I'm required to post this video here.
The last half of this song or so is about how much he loves Jesus even though he doesn't believe in god.
I love this! Thanks Abreo
I totally agree with you. I'm a humanist myself, but I believe in the way Jesus lived his life, as well as other religious figures like Buddha. I don't see why not- the way he is portrayed in the bible is amazing and he is a good example of dftba and how to decrease world suck. :)
Jesus has become a hot button name. I'd prefer not to associate or give Christians the fodder of saying that Jesus was a great guy and all.
I side with Hitchens more so that others I've seen on the topic.
I also don't really buy it. In terms of the bible, the golden rule has been found in other cultures earlier on, Jesus wasn't exactly a revolutionary on that front (he was more so a revolutionary on the "Don't throw rocks, that isn't nice" front). Jesus brings in a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth stuff, condemning people, people have to love him before everyone else, can't bury your dead father gotta follow me first and generally serves as a scapegoat (actual term, not contemporary term) for guilt. This has implications for the "slave of god" thing that Hitchens likes to discuss as well.
There's a fundimental problem with that argument. What if person X's way to live involves inflicting suffering on person Y but person Y's way to live involves not feeling any suffering?
The idea that we can all have moral codes in isolation is absurd. There is a way to live. It is both complex and simple, but it exists.
While you may be of the opinion that the above example is simplistic to solve, things get more complex when you throw other factors into the works. Let's say that you then respond by saying that you should not inflict suffering. How do you define inflicting suffering? Is suffering only inflicted by your actions as opposed to your inactions? These questions are many and various. The idea that we can all just have our own system of values is absurd.
Not everyone's way to live is a right way. But that doesn't mean that people still don't live the way that they think is right. Even if there is a certain way to live, I doubt that a person who likes to inflict pain and suffering would stop just because that is not the right way to live life. You can not force a person to live a certain way, no matter how "right" it may be. To them their way is the right way, and all other ways are wrong. So in a way we do all live by our own system of values.
You've just contradicted your earlier statement. How can you say
As Hutch pointed out, the golden rule has been going on for yonder time longer than Jesus and Christians. They simply re-branded their type of Judaism. I do wonder though, other than the golden rule, what teachings are there one would follow? Selling all your worldly possessions, and following the nearest Homeless man who proclaims to be god? Believe that said Homeless man has come to turn brother on brother, and father on sun? Yeeeah, no thanks.
Jesus, no thanks.
The Bible doesn't teach that it is nessecary for us to sell all of our worldly possessions in order to follow Jesus. Nor does the Bible say that the Golden rule is some kind of uniquely Judeo-Christian idea.
Oh it doesn't outright say it, however is does heavily imply it rather strongly. The eye of the needle for example. Can't much poorer than that. As for the Golden rule, those ignorant of other cultures however tend to attribute its creation too Christian philosophy.
Oh it doesn't outright say it, however is does heavily imply it rather strongly.
Can you give an example?
The eye of the needle for example. Can't much poorer than that.
Please explain how the eye of the needle is an example of Jesus claiming that the golden rule was unique to the Judeo-Christian world.