Is crucifixion that bad?

[paulos66]

They reckon Jesus suffered for our sins, but surely if he was suffering for everyones sins, including those not born yet he got off llightly with mere crucifixion

[naomi24]

paulo, yes, I was surprised too, but from my travels in the east, it does seem that wealth comes into it. I think Buddhists see a weathy person as someone who must have led a good life in their previous incarnation - hence their reincarnation into an easier lifestyle. At least, that's what I've been told by Buddhists, and if you think about the Buddhist philosophy of rebirth, I suppose it makes sense.

Buddha was himself a very rich man - a prince I believe - but he abandoned his wealth to seek enlightenment - so perhaps that's the final lesson Buddhists must learn before attaining Nirvana. Just a thought.

[paulos66]

pity

[naomi24]

Certainly is! :o)

[Theland]

paulos - is it the Trinity that you find difficulty in accepting?

[paulos66]

Seems a fairly confusing concept

[paulos66]

btw I don't accept the rest of it neither

[Theland]

paulos - are you atheist / agnostic / or do you have some belief of your own?

[whiffey]

chakka, I am sorry for the sarcasm, but the fact is that many disciples went out to preach and die for their faith, and they simply wouldn't have done that if they knew the resurrection to be a fake, they wouldn't die in the name of a crippled man. And if Jesus died, why didn't the Jerusalem authorities produce the body, that would have put the lid on it at once.

I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. I cannot link the Word of John 1:1 with Jesus as everybody else does. To me it makes sense for Jesus to be the SON of god, in the way we understand that. Therefore it is possible for Jesus to have been abandoned on the cross. That sounds a terribly cruel thing for a father to do, but makes it a tremendous meditation.

re: the spear, in John

'Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.'

The writer is emphatic that he is quoting an eye-witness.

[paulos66]

I was christened without my consent, does that make me a christian?

[Theland]

paulos - A Christian is one who accepts the free gift of forgiveness that is now available from God, as His perfect justice has been satisfied.

[paulos66]

Phew, so was I ever a christian?
btw I consider myself an atheist

[paulos66]

Sorry meant Athiest, if you insist on an upper case c

[Theland]

paulos - No, the definition of a Christian is as I stated, one who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Got to go now.
Speak later or tomorrow morning. (Night shift).

[paulos66]

So you will agree before you go that christening of children is a heinous pointless act

[paulos66]

Theland sorry that wasn't a Freudian it should have read 'will you' not 'you will'

[WaldoMcFroog]

Whiffey, you seem to be accepting evidence of the 'bloke down the pub said it - must be true' variety.

Just saying that an eyewitness saw something does not make it true, and it especially doesn't make it true when the events the witness is supposedly corroborating occur in the same book. I've said this to Theland before now, but it's like saying that Harry Potter must really have discovered the Chamber of Secrets in Hogwarts, because Hagrid says it exists earlier in the book.

[4GS]

No,
We made the decision to Christen our two boys on their behalf, due to them being too young to make that decision themselves, when they are old enough to decide whether or not to accept the teachings of the Holy Bible and Jesus then they can. It will then be their choice.

[paulos66]

4GS. in other words it means nothing?

[4GS]

Not really pointless, my wife and I teach them Christian values at home, my eldest boy who's 4 comes to church with me, (he goes to the sunday school) and he talks about God/Jesus etc at home. As I said, when he's old enough to decide whether it's for him or not then he can, if he decides it's not for him, then we will off course be disappointed but we will also respect his decision.

[whiffey]

Waldo, these will always be matters of faith rather than provable fact, or logic. These discussions will continue forever, and as repetitively as saying Hello to someone you already said hello to yesterday.

However, I don't see that the New Testament should be any less reliable than the writings of, say Julius Caesar. If at the beginning of Luke the writer stresses that he has investigated everything from the beginning, and if John stresses that he is quoting an eye-witness, then I take that seriously because my starting point is that it could well be true, otherwise why bother writing it - why make it up ?

As ever, we will all have pleasantly to differ and amble along until the next discussion !