WWJD?

[Ivellios]

So maybe I'm not a "Christian" in the proper sense. I was never a "Christian" Christian, but actually raised Catholic. Catholics don't require the personal relationship with Jesus to get into heaven. They only require that you are absolved from sin.

I think Jesus is a part of God, but not the entirety of God. We are ALL a part of God, so the conglomerate makes up the entirety of God. And, if we're getting into the part about God doing the killing, yes, it is happening directly by God and I don't think God has an opinion either way.

Roman Catholicism:
there's a drawung with 3 circles, one with the Father, Jesus and the last with Holy Ghost... these 3 circles have a line going between them to a focal point with another circle with God in it. the line going between God and the three has 'Is' in it... and an outer ring with lines saying, "is not" going between the 3.

Basically, The Father is God, but is not Jesus, and is not the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is God, but is not the Father and is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God but is not Jesus, is not the Father.

This is the trinitarian belief. Started by Catholicism. I was raised as both Baptist by one parent and Catholic by the other. So I know both belief systems.

[Anfauglir]

...in what way you can assert that Jesus wants this relationship with me because he loves me, but that the same claim cannot be said of Cato?  Since there is no way of asking questions of the characters concerned, in what way are you able to make claims about the specific desires of one character's intentions towards me, and not another?  Where, for example, in the Bible does Jesus state he wants a relationship with me?

The claims I am making come from the mouth of Jesus and are directed to us the reader.....
There are many references in the Bible .......

...then you will have no problem in quoting the passages where there is a direct answer to my question.

But perhaps there IS no direct answer to my question?  In which case we come back to the problem of this one-way, archaic communication - that it comes down to the reader's interpretation of exactly what the speaker intended.  And THAT, YY, is why I do not believe you when you say that a loving, open, and honest being of immense power wants a "relationship" with me.

Let's look quickly at the problems with having to interpret what Jesus really meant.....

....really, did you expect that I'd answer just like Jesus would?

Yes.  Because....

....I'll try my best to answer as my friend and yours, JC.

So we have two possibilities. 

Either you fully understand what Jesus wants and speak comprehensively for him....in which case you are doing a pretty poor job of it.

Or, more likely, you have come to one particular understanding of what you think Jesus wanted - but admit that (in large because of the one-way nature of the process) you cannot answer questions with any guarantee of accuracy:

The best way I can answer your question......I'm not able to speak directly to Jesus.....

Which leaves us - as has been pointed out umpteen times in this thread - that you have no more claim to know what Jesus really meant than anyone else.  For that reason, any claim made on Jesus' part that is not directly and unambiguously stated in the Source with no contradictory view, carries no more validity of what Jesus wanted than any competing claim.

[globalvalue]

Hello my atheist brethren. I love you all so much and think you are a great group of people, although IMHO, I think some of you may be seeing only part of the picture. I am a theist who has been here before and would like to offer you the opportunity to role play with the person I think Jesus was.

So feel free to ask Jesus some questions and I'll try my best to answer as my friend and yours, JC.

Hello......
I notice someone else asked you about Jesus cursing the fig tree.
I have different question about that fig tree.


Mark 11:12-14, 19-21
12 On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry. 13 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” And His disciples were listening.
19 When evening came, they would go out of the city.
20 As they were passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots up. 21 Being reminded, Peter *said to Him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree which You cursed has withered.”

As you can see Jesus destroyed this fig tree.
But look what it says about fruit trees in the Hebrew Scriptures.....

Deuteronomy 20:19-20
19 “When you besiege a city a long time, to make war against it in order to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them; for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you? 20 Only the trees which you know are not fruit trees you shall destroy and cut down, that you may construct siegeworks against the city that is making war with you until it falls.

It seems that the God of the OT did not allow fruit trees to be destroyed.
Do you see a contradiction between Jesus' treatment of fruit trees and the God of the OT treatment of fruit trees?

[velkyn]

YY, 

I know this will show up in your lists of threads you've participated in.  In that you've claimed to be speaking for Jesus Christ, I'm sure you'd rather not let us all hanging for your responses. However, I do think that you realized that you had to actual answer questions for things you claimed to have evidence for. 

This entire thread was you sure that you adn you alone know what God/Jesus "really" meant and then when presented with countering arguments, then suddenly you didn't want to speak for Jesus anymore.    All of the sudden you decided that what you "really" were looking for was "

YY is trying to figure out the atheist quest. What really is it that atheists wish to achieve?" 

and you seemed to think that this absolved you from answering any questions based on what you initially claimed to be wanting to do

"Hello my atheist brethren. I love you all so much and think you are a great group of people, although IMHO, I think some of you may be seeing only part of the picture. I am a theist who has been here before and would like to offer you the opportunity to role play with the person I think Jesus was. So feel free to ask Jesus some questions and I'll try my best to answer as my friend and yours, JC. "

 

We of course then proceeded with asking question, and getting your "interpretations" of what God/JC "really" meant.  Of course, having nothing to support you, it became a lot of spag, and a Christian insisting that his version was the right one, along wtih the usual theist claims that atheists don't "really" want to understand, the usual theist nonsense of attempting to redefine words,  and ah yes, claiming that your offer was just in "fun" after it became clear that you were failing left and right in your attempts to answer like JC, etc. 

I'm curious, YY, considering I and anfauglir are okay with you answering now, Iam wondering what it taking so long.

[YY]

This entire thread was you sure that you adn you alone know what God/Jesus "really" meant

How did you get this from me saying "I am a theist who has been here before and would like to offer you the opportunity to role play with the person I think Jesus was.". This is a prime example of how you, velkyn, don't understand and twist the words that I'm saying. You put large filters on, fill in gaps with your atheist bias, call me names that I don't deserve like "liar", and simply use me to promote your hatred for Christians.

I'm curious, YY, considering I and anfauglir are okay with you answering now, Iam wondering what it taking so long.

Please either re-ask a question or look through the other two threads that I'm updating pretty actively and try to either find your answers there or repost another question in those threads.
[/quote]

[YY]

and ah yes, claiming that your offer was just in "fun" after it became clear that you were failing left and right in your attempts to answer like JC, etc. 

Another misrepresentation from the velkyn. Please note that this statement makes it sound like I fielded question after question and couldn't answer without backtracking and then stating that I was only doing this in "fun".

In reality, I started out by saying that I was only doing this in "fun" and that also was intended to let everyone know that this was my version of how I thought Jesus would respond. I am honest enough to realize that I cannot speak for Jesus much less anyone other than myself.

If it's PROOF you want, please see PAGE 1 of 10 of this thread in response number 22 - one of my first interactions with velkyn.

[velkyn]

Please either re-ask a question or look through the other two threads that I'm updating pretty actively and try to either find your answers there or repost another question in those threads.

I’m sorry, YY.  I have asked too much of you and I see that now.  You don’t have to do anything at all since even if I posted what you could read by tilting your head up, you’d still come up with more and more excuses and we have all of those already.

[Anfauglir]

.....this was my version of how I thought Jesus would respond. I am honest enough to realize that I cannot speak for Jesus much less anyone other than myself.

Well quite - that's exactly the point.  As I said a couple weeks ago:
"Which leaves us - as has been pointed out umpteen times in this thread - that you have no more claim to know what Jesus really meant than anyone else.  For that reason, any claim made on Jesus' part that is not directly and unambiguously stated in the Source with no contradictory view, carries no more validity of what Jesus wanted than any competing claim."

So absolutely you can have fun pretending to answer the way you think Jesus would have answered - but, then again, so can I and so can Velkyn and so can anyone.  And doubtless we would all answer slightly - or very- differently.  So while it may be a fun little icebreaker for a party - "Question 2: what would Jesus think about Traffic Wardens?" - there is absolutely no grounds for ANYONE, whether peasant or priest or pope, to assert their ability to speak for Jesus.