Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes indeed. I would never trust those men who left their normal lives for the privilege of preaching the gospel, endure torture, hunger, extreme exertions, beatings, and suffer painful deaths to ever tell the truth about anything, even less to have any confidence in the Church they organized. If you don't trust His apostles, then how can you come to know on what to base your faith? 

 

Everyone is supposed to rely on the light of Christ, their own conscience.  If you base your trust on the amount of persecution that is dished out to a group, perhaps Judaism wins...  many religious groups have endured torture etc.  does that mean they are right?

 

 

muslim.JPG

Buddhist.JPG

HinduP.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Oops, missed the lights. So, not as good an ambush as mine. That is okay. I doubt the head of the Chief Priest’s guards read Sun Tzu.

My theory still holds. Even with torches and lanterns it is difficult in the dark to quickly identify an individual. Seeing Judas kiss Jesus made it clear to them who they were after.

Why do you have this hatred of organization? I mean, I kind of get it. I prefer a laid back approach to life (I am trying to repent) but this seems way beyond that.

yes - laid-back = humble.  The "My way or the highway", your salvation only comes through xyz organization - this is what the dark ages was based on.  If I am to believe in a loving and just God, it will be a God who is no respecter of persons, who does not rely on any human organizations, who gives everyone their own personal light - their own personal conscience to guide them, so no one has to rely on any arms of flesh.  

Communities are good, so long as they are "by the people for the people", not by some power-hungry dictator.  ;)

The many examples of fallen and mistaken leaders in the Bible (and other holy and inspired books) are lessons about spiritual self-reliance, and personal testimony - not relying on any arms of flesh, but following the inner light - light of Christ if you will, which resides in all.  

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Everyone is supposed to rely on the light of Christ, their own conscience.  If you base your trust on the amount of persecution that is dished out to a group, perhaps Judaism wins...  many religious groups have endured torture etc.  does that mean they are right?

 

 

muslim.JPG

Buddhist.JPG

HinduP.JPG

This has nothing to do with the OP. I was addressing your atrocious attack on the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Attacks on any religious group are despicable. So are uninvited and unwarranted attacks on Apostles.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

yes - laid-back = humble.  The "My way or the highway", your salvation only comes through xyz organization - this is what the dark ages was based on.  If I am to believe in a loving and just God, it will be a God who is no respecter of persons, who does not rely on any human organizations, who gives everyone their own personal light - their own personal conscience to guide them, so no one has to rely on any arms of flesh.  

Communities are good, so long as they are "by the people for the people", not by some power-hungry dictator.  ;)

The many examples of fallen and mistaken leaders in the Bible (and other holy and inspired books) are lessons about spiritual self-reliance, and personal testimony - not relying on any arms of flesh, but following the inner light - light of Christ if you will, which resides in all.  

No, without organized religion you would probably have never heard of Christ and there would probably be no bible to teach this lesson.

It is not “my way”. That would be arrogant. It is “God’s way”. For the bulk of humanity that reaches accountability though you are right. Following the light within will take you to a place of great glory. For those who want more higher laws and covenants are required. Have you considered that your belief that God would never work through an organized religion is you creating God in your own image.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, without organized religion you would probably have never heard of Christ and there would probably be no bible to teach this lesson.

It is not “my way”. That would be arrogant. It is “God’s way”. For the bulk of humanity that reaches accountability though you are right. Following the light within will take you to a place of great glory. For those who want more higher laws and covenants are required. Have you considered that your belief that God would never work through an organized religion is you creating God in your own image.

The "My way or the highway", .... is what the dark ages was based on.  

"The" - not "yours"  ;)  This is why I do not like organized religious groups who claim theirs is the only way to salvation.  

When I look out at all the organized religious groups in the world I see many things which are similar - acts of service, dedication to family, work ethics, character development, seeking to build places of peace, joy etc.  A rose by any other name - some say "Heavenly Father" others say "Allah", but for most of the people, in most of the groups, the goal is the same - it comes to following that inner light.  That is the point - no one needs to use the same book, or any book at all.  No one needs to belong to the same church - this is how God set up this world - the tower of Babble, breaking us all into different groups, different tribes - that is how God set it up.  I'm choosing to take the good, and walk away from what is not good, and feel absolutely no guilt over disagreeing with what some authority figure states.  

Communities are good enough to take us only part of the way by design.  What communities are not able to provide - or where leaders, like Judas, take people astray - this is where personal spiritual self-reliance are born.  If leaders and communities were able to provide everything, there would be no independent thought, no free agency, no real room to think or have any kind of freedom at all.  

Within any group - educational, political, religious - there must be room for doubt, room to question, room to not agree with the authority figure.  Students should be free to question what their professors say - free to debate.  Political groups are free to disagree with elected officials - even if they are in the same party.  The same goes for religious groups.  No one is perfect (example Judas) equates to freedom of all individuals to not feel obligated to trust or follow any leader.  

We all come to know God through our own conscience - the light of Christ as Christians call it.  This is just, this is loving.  Do you think those who grow up without Bibles do not know God?  Everyone knows God - because everyone has a conscience. 

"Flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee"  - not from leaders, not from books - we all get everything we need straight from the source.

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This has nothing to do with the OP. I was addressing your atrocious attack on the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Attacks on any religious group are despicable. So are uninvited and unwarranted attacks on Apostles.

 

Judas was an apostle - so was doubting Thomas, so was Peter who denied Christ - so were all of them who slept and could not stay awake even one hour.  This is not an attack, this is what is recorded in the scriptures - so what is the point of having Jesus betrayed and denied and abandoned by those who were supposed to be his closest friends?  To let us know not to count on "leaders" either.  At least the original apostles admitted their mistakes, were ashamed of themselves - wrote it down, repented - their repentance and transparency with their mistakes redeems the original apostles in my eyes.  

Not so for the supposed current lot - blacks and the priesthood, denying children of LGBT, abuse etc. etc. and not one "I'm sorry, I made a mistake".  

The lesson of Judas and the rest - an example of the damage done when leaders make mistakes, and how some leaders were able to redeem themselves from their shortcomings.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

The "My way or the highway", .... is what the dark ages was based on.  

"The" - not "yours"  ;)  This is why I do not like organized religious groups who claim theirs is the only way to salvation.  

When I look out at all the organized religious groups in the world I see many things which are similar - acts of service, dedication to family, work ethics, character development, seeking to build places of peace, joy etc.  A rose by any other name - some say "Heavenly Father" others say "Allah", but for most of the people, in most of the groups, the goal is the same - it comes to following that inner light.  That is the point - no one needs to use the same book, or any book at all.  No one needs to belong to the same church - this is how God set up this world - the tower of Babble, breaking us all into different groups, different tribes - that is how God set it up.  I'm choosing to take the good, and walk away from what is not good, and feel absolutely no guilt over disagreeing with what some authority figure states.  

Communities are good enough to take us only part of the way by design.  What communities are not able to provide - or where leaders, like Judas, take people astray - this is where personal spiritual self-reliance are born.  If leaders and communities were able to provide everything, there would be no independent thought, no free agency, no real room to think or have any kind of freedom at all.  

Within any group - educational, political, religious - there must be room for doubt, room to question, room to not agree with the authority figure.  Students should be free to question what their professors say - free to debate.  Political groups are free to disagree with elected officials - even if they are in the same party.  The same goes for religious groups.  No one is perfect (example Judas) equates to freedom of all individuals to not feel obligated to trust or follow any leader.  

We all come to know God through our own conscience - the light of Christ as Christians call it.  This is just, this is loving.  Do you think those who grow up without Bibles do not know God?  Everyone knows God - because everyone has a conscience. 

"Flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee"  - not from leaders, not from books - we all get everything we need straight from the source.

The “dark ages” were the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire. With no central authority there was a lot of chaos. Religion had relatively little to do with it. Most academics have discarded the term because it has negative connotations and, while the fall of Rome led to a loss of classical education and learning it was not an age of ignorance and backwardness.

It is odd you quote the Bible and Christianity and allude to Islam. I suspect Jesus would not have been impressed with your wisdom had you argued that Stoicism and Jupiter were also valid religious paths equal to what He brought from the Father. Had you told Mohammed what you said above he would have called you a blasphemer and possibly have killed you. If you want to believe in a kind of universal pantheism you can but using the Bible (or most other religious texts) to support your contention is nuts. You can pull isolated passages but the whole does not back you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2019 at 10:21 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Reading this week’s Come Follow Me lesson, I wondered why the Jewish leaders took up Judas’s offer to identify Jesus so they could arrest him. They knew who he was, and could easily have located him.

Any thoughts?

Because it was too dark to accurately identify him at night when they arrested him?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The “dark ages” were the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire. With no central authority there was a lot of chaos. Religion had relatively little to do with it. Most academics have discarded the term because it has negative connotations and, while the fall of Rome led to a loss of classical education and learning it was not an age of ignorance and backwardness.

It is odd you quote the Bible and Christianity and allude to Islam. I suspect Jesus would not have been impressed with your wisdom had you argued that Stoicism and Jupiter were also valid religious paths equal to what He brought from the Father. Had you told Mohammed what you said above he would have called you a blasphemer and possibly have killed you. If you want to believe in a kind of universal pantheism you can but using the Bible (or most other religious texts) to support your contention is nuts. You can pull isolated passages but the whole does not back you.

 

Forgive me - I agree there is darkness within all ages,  following the  "middle ages" was an era of reform -  why was reformation needed?  I think we can all agree with the need for separation of church and state?  Why should religious leaders - such as the pope - not be allowed to rule like kings?  Why should no imperfect human be allowed to rule as a king?  

No person is perfect.  No book is perfect.  An informed decision, and free population, takes into account multiple resources - "by the people" rather than "by one imperfect person who holds all the power".  Everyone goes astray from time to time, put all your eggs into one basket, and you will be in trouble.  Take a balanced approach, learn from everyone.  The combined understanding of the majority of the people will be the most reliable method.  It is necessary to accept uncertainty within all of it - within every book and every group, study it all out - every book and every group - then take personal responsibility for pulling together where everyone agrees, and allowing yourself to be guided by your own conscience in the end.  To me this is the lesson of Judas - don't trust authority figures - learn from them - both good and bad - but don't feel obligated to follow or trust them, as you would not follow or trust any single individual who is not perfect here on Earth.  We are all called to have our own testimony, our own light.  We are all called to be self-reliant.  

 

... I work in a very diverse environment - within my classrooms are every language, every religious belief, every age - there are many things we all agree with.  No one has ever fought with one another.  The contrary - I have seen Jewish students and Muslims become friends.  I have seen American vets and Vietnamese vets work together in a semester- long project group.  I have seen the underlying light within all that binds everyone together, and it is an incredibly beautiful thing.  

 

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Rivers said:

Because it was too dark to accurately identify him at night when they arrested him?

They had torches and lanterns. Peter could see well enough to lop off the ear of a member of the mob.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 2:04 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Previously, they had plotted to do him in. During this day, they inquired of him, observed him, followed him, met with him face to face, and heard him teach parables and condemn them personally. I think they knew him. He did a lot to attract attention to himself including riding into town with a huge crowd and violently confronting moneychangers in the temple. They also had spies and servants who did their bidding and could easily follow him to his hideout. They dared not take him in the daytime because they feared the people would react against them, so they sought to take him at night. Even then, they had light, spies, and witnesses. Before Peter's denial, two young women identified him as being a disciple. I think the collected Jewish leaders and their cohorts were at least as competent as two girls.

1. The popularity of Jesus in the Gospels is likely an exaggeration.

2. Even if it wasn't an exaggeration, knowing his name and knowing of him is drastically different than being able to identify him on one's own.

3. It wasn't like there was a single body of antagonistic Jews following him around.

4. You underestimate how much photography today helps us remember faces.

5. The persons confronting Jesus in Gethsemane likely never saw Jesus themselves and would have had no idea what he looked like.

On the road to Emmaus, the two disciples didn't even recognize Jesus--not because he was wearing a disguise, but because they probably only met Jesus once from a distance (if ever) and simply didn't recognize him.

Jesus wasn't all the special--meaning there wasn't anything in particular physically that made him stand out. It was his words and actions that drew attention to him, and even those were relatively minor. He was just one of many self-proclaimed messiahs, and he spent almost all of his very short ministry outside of Jerusalem. This was a time before photography, video, TV, and even realist portraits. Without him saying, "I'm Jesus of Nazareth, look at me!" nobody would have the damnedest clue of who he was--besides his close disciples who spent time with him. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/12/2019 at 3:02 PM, the narrator said:

1. The popularity of Jesus in the Gospels is likely an exaggeration.

2. Even if it wasn't an exaggeration, knowing his name and knowing of him is drastically different than being able to identify him on one's own.

3. It wasn't like there was a single body of antagonistic Jews following him around.

4. You underestimate how much photography today helps us remember faces.

5. The persons confronting Jesus in Gethsemane likely never saw Jesus themselves and would have had no idea what he looked like.

On the road to Emmaus, the two disciples didn't even recognize Jesus--not because he was wearing a disguise, but because they probably only met Jesus once from a distance (if ever) and simply didn't recognize him.

Jesus wasn't all the special--meaning there wasn't anything in particular physically that made him stand out. It was his words and actions that drew attention to him, and even those were relatively minor. He was just one of many self-proclaimed messiahs, and he spent almost all of his very short ministry outside of Jerusalem. This was a time before photography, video, TV, and even realist portraits. Without him saying, "I'm Jesus of Nazareth, look at me!" nobody would have the damnedest clue of who he was--besides his close disciples who spent time with him. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

Condescending and insulting don’t encourage a productive conversation.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 8:18 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Yes indeed. I would never trust those men who left their normal lives for the privilege of preaching the gospel, endure torture, hunger, extreme exertions, beatings, and suffer painful deaths to ever tell the truth about anything, even less to have any confidence in the Church they organized. If you don't trust His apostles, then how can you come to know on what to base your faith? 

Perhaps the same mechanism that allows you to trust them in the first place instead of the Pope or Maharishi or Mohammed?

YOU still choose what alleged truth to believe. It's still faith all the way down! 

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps the same mechanism that allows you to trust them in the first place instead of the Pope or Maharishi or Mohammed?

YOU still choose what alleged truth to believe. It's still faith all the way down! 

;)

 

There's also that mechanism of personal revelation.

Share this post


Link to post

What was Judas' motivation? Just the money ? A movie about that event suggested that Judas was unhappy with Jesus because He didn't act like " the Messiah " should so Judas was trying to push Jesus into overthrowing the Romans etc. When the plan backfired , Judas saw his error he threw the money back and hung himself. Any other insights?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

There's also that mechanism of personal revelation.

Yes, I meant they were the same 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What was Judas' motivation? Just the money ? A movie about that event suggested that Judas was unhappy with Jesus because He didn't act like " the Messiah " should so Judas was trying to push Jesus into overthrowing the Romans etc. When the plan backfired , Judas saw his error he threw the money back and hung himself. Any other insights?

I think we don’t have enough information to know exactly what happened and what motivations were in play. What you said makes sense, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2019 at 8:18 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Yes indeed. I would never trust those men who left their normal lives for the privilege of preaching the gospel, endure torture, hunger, extreme exertions, beatings, and suffer painful deaths to ever tell the truth about anything, even less to have any confidence in the Church they organized. If you don't trust His apostles, then how can you come to know on what to base your faith? 

Jesus knew the end from the beginning.  He knew how to direct His disciples to the upper room.  He knew Judas would betray Him.  Why couldn’t the Romans have just arrested Jesus without Judas’ betrayal?  I wonder the Savior wanted to point out that we should be aware that some individuals can do a lot of damage to us individually, and as a society and world, if we let them.  “Judas” is a cliche, as is “Benedict Arnold,” “Hitler” and probably many others.  

I have been tempted in years past to have sympathy for Judas and the role he played in the Atonement, when the Romans could have done it without him.  “Poor Judas.”  But Jesus said: “24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”  Matt. 26:24.

Woe unto any of us who would be tempted to betray anyone for money (or power, or influence, or anything else.). It’s not worth the money.  I’m thinking of the Pharisees who devour widows houses.  I believe honor and honesty are the premier virtues.

Edited by Meerkat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/10/2019 at 1:42 PM, the narrator said:

They may have known of him, but likely didn't know him. While Jesus could draw crowds, he was still a relatively minor figure. It would be unlikely that the leaders would have ever seen him up close personally (if at all), and given that this was millennia before photography and centuries before realist art, they had no ability to identify him in bright sunlight without anyone pointing him out to them.

And, of course, this assumes that Judas was real, which is debatable.

I think the criterion off embarrassment in on the side of it being less likely the story is made up that one of those closest to Jesus turned on Him and brought about an ignominious death. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jpv said:

I think the criterion off embarrassment in on the side of it being less likely the story is made up that one of those closest to Jesus turned on Him and brought about an ignominious death. 

Betrayal of the hero by a close friend is a pretty common story in mythology.  And history as well (Caesar and Brutus).

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...