What's jesus's primary message?

[nobspeople]

One a different thread, ostend said:

At the risk of proposing another heresy, I don't believe the primary message Jesus preached was to get people saved so they can enter the celestial heaven after they die. Yes, it's important, who wants to go to hell? But, it was not Jesus's primary message.

Who wants to go to hell? Indeed. Likely no one 'wants to', which is one reason christianity is as successful as it is: fear of hell (throw in guilt and you have a winner, baby!).

That aside, it's taught jesus came to earth (god became man and other malarkey that not every one believes) to be a sacrifice for mankind. Sacrifice for what? Their sins, it seems. This would, again, seem to open a pathway to heaven.
But, if, as osteng believes, that's not jesus's primary message, what was it?
Was it successful?
I don't know of anything else he did, aside from starting a religion which, successful as it may seem when counting heads in pews, it's not difficult to do as the testament of the myriad of other religions that existed before and after his lifetime.

[bluegreenearth]

If we look what happened before it, the story tells Jesus forgave sins and scribes and the Pharisees thought he has no right for that. And for to prove he has the authority, Jesus healed the man. I don't think it means the sickness was because of the mans sin, all though I believe sickness can be the result of sinfulness. I understand sin means person rejects, or is without God. That can have many unfortunate results, when one is without God and His protection.

How did the act of healing the man demonstrate his authority to forgive sins if Jesus didn't believe there was a direct connection between paralysis and unforgiven sin? For instance, even if Jesus managed to heal a man who had become paralyzed through no fault of an unforgiven sin (presuming the entire event wasn't staged with payed actors), where in this transaction was his authority to forgive sins observed? The reasoning offered in this story makes the same amount of sense as suggesting Jesus's authority to wave tax debts was proven by his ability to heal a paralyzed man. Neither tax debt nor unforgiven sin have anything whatsoever to do with paralysis. It seems to me that demonstrating an ability to heal people (again, presuming such events weren't staged or fortunate coincidences) would only prove Jesus's authority to treat various medical conditions.

[Noose001]

God is a creator so He creates.

Your difficulty here is in showing ya speak truth.

In the same manner a teacher is a teacher because he/she teaches; whether the students get it or not. Either, a teacher is succesful.just because they teach and God because He creates.

And again here, where you declare as fact that which ain't in evidence...

"God because he creates".

Not nowhere, not nohow've you've offered us any means to confirm you speak the truth about this here.

It's creation because we are in creation right now.

Assumes facts... don't get ahead of me here... which ain't in evidence.

We observe the universe. That's it.

We can't no more say it was created than we can say Aunt Beulah's sexy at her four hunderd and some odd pounds.

As a panentheist, i believe God 'creates by becoming'; a good person will be in the next world with the experience of good and evil, a bad person will be in the next world as darkness which gives meaning to light.

Your belief has it no more evidence to it than my belief the pretty thing's trying to kill me by them little green peas - and I have evidence of her akeeping on fixing em.

You're claims are so lacking in merit, so lacking in an nth of evidentiary value, we gotta now fetch on off to the edit the wiki page about it.

Depends with what you mean by evidence; for instance, what woukd you give as evidence that it is dark? Would it be because you see ( observe) or because to don't see (don't observe)

Reason is something you need to co sider above evidence.

[bluegreenearth]

Depends with what you mean by evidence;...

Would you accept the following definition for the word "evidence":

Evidence = Anything that demonstrably and objectively functions to distinguish real things from imaginary things.

[JoeyKnothead]

Depends with what you mean by evidence; for instance, what woukd you give as evidence that it is dark?

What did I claim was "dark"?

I ain't bound to support claims I ain't made.

Would it be because you see ( observe) or because to don't see (don't observe)

I lack sufficient mental capacity to understand what it is you're agetting at here.

If it's pertinent, I reject any implication that I'd disagree by means of some "refuses to see" argument. I got me an old lady. I'm used to fessing I'm wrong when I know danged well I ain't.



(I'm gonna put that "n" in there for clarity, we ain't picking on folks for typos)

Reason is something you need to consider above evidence.

If there's no reason to consider evidence viable, well there we go.

You make claims you can't support, don't fuss on me cause ya can't.

[brunumb]

Hate must be there for love to have a meaning, and this is creation. Just like darkness gives meaning to light.

A commonly quoted cliché but is it demonstrably true? I don't think so. Sounds like nothing more than rhetoric to me. Light doesn't have meaning. It is a form of energy. Visible light is that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be detected by the human eye. What meaning does love have? Surely love can exist in the absence of hate or those expecting heavenly bliss are going to be sorely disappointed.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...
Visible light is that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be detected by the human eye. What meaning does love have? Surely love can exist in the absence of hate or those expecting heavenly bliss are going to be sorely disappointed.

Visible light is that part of the spectrum we don't never see us God, nor Jesus neither one, to acome acrost.

[Noose001]

Would you accept the following definition for the word "evidence":

Evidence = Anything that demonstrably and objectively functions to distinguish real things from imaginary things.

Partly acceptable; can common understanding or simple reasoning also distinguish 'real things' from thise that aren't?

[Noose001]

A commonly quoted cliché but is it demonstrably true? I don't think so. Sounds like nothing more than rhetoric to me. Light doesn't have meaning. It is a form of energy. Visible light is that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be detected by the human eye. What meaning does love have? Surely love can exist in the absence of hate or those expecting heavenly bliss are going to be sorely disappointed.

'Something' get's its meaning from 'nothing', in the absence of nothing, something can't be.

Up get's its meaning from down, in the absence of up there's no such thing as down.

And darkness gives light it's meaning, same applies to love/hate.
If you have noticed, it's the mind that acts as a main reference point. Up and down are nothing until a mind compares up from down. This is true for all kinds of changes including changes that affect energy; that change is time.

[Noose001]

Not speaking about man, but god.
Is god in capable of failing?

No, you don't speak about man minus God. If what God does he does through men, then the result 'might' appear to fail. It is only those in the temporospatial that 'see' failure and success because interacting with the universe we come to the knowledge of 'failure' and 'success', outside time there's no failure or success.

[bluegreenearth]

Partly acceptable; can common understanding or simple reasoning also distinguish 'real things' from things that aren't?

Not necessarily. Optical and auditory illusions are examples of things where common understanding or simple reasoning will fail to distinguish real things from things that aren't.