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]

But direct experience falls outside your definition of evidence. That's what i refered to as common understanding. This direct experience doesn't work alone, reason has to be applied (indeed reason is also applied in empirical evidence).

Direct experience does not fall outside my definition of evidence. We can directly experience something in reality without understanding what it is or what is causing it. Therefore, conscious is real even though we don't fully understand it or what causes it.

Oh, so darkness is not a real condition, it is imagined.
Good to know that.

I will presume, for sake of charity, that your response above was an unintentional strawman?

My conclusion was that darkness does not describe a THING that exists but the ABSENCE of a thing (i.e. visible light). The absence of light is a real condition.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #60]

How do you show god is with all men? Or is there not a way? And is god with men when they sin What does 'with men' mean, exactly?

Earlier you said jesus' was successful. Was this success then, outside of time?
Within time.

What does that mean, exactly? How do you correclate this to the 'Very succesful' claim you made earlier? Or does it?

[brunumb]

You could tell us what criteria you would use, and how you would apply them, to distinguish between the real and the imaginary. That would clear up the matter.

Common understanding and reasoning should suffice.

Someone has an experience in which an angel allegedly appeared to them and gave them a message. So, once again, what criteria would you use, and how you would apply them, to establish that the experienced angel was real and not imaginary? How does common understanding and reasoning suffice?

[Noose001]

Someone has an experience in which an angel allegedly appeared to them and gave them a message. So, once again, what criteria would you use, and how you would apply them, to establish that the experienced angel was real and not imaginary? How does common understanding and reasoning suffice?

For subjective experience, we trust or mistrust; that's all. Common understanding is very different. It's common because everyone experiences it.

[Noose001]

How do you show god is with all men? Or is there not a way? And is god with men when they sin What does 'with men' mean, exactly?

God is all encompassing life/consciousness; First in men and then every creation through the mind of a man. This doesn't take away men's free will though. Disobedience (sin) brought death to all living things and decay to all non living things and obedience brought life and eternalness and oneness with God to all creation. But this is creation; Jesus was successful because creation happens regardless of ones choices. The imagery used in creation is God bringing out light out of darkness. Disobedience means darkness, but God make light out of it regardless.

This answers the second question

Can i show it? No, i believe but i have reason to believe.

Earlier you said jesus' was successful. Was this success then, outside of time?
Within time.

What does that mean, exactly? How do you correclate this to the 'Very succesful' claim you made earlier? Or does it?
[/quote]

[Noose001]

Direct experience does not fall outside my definition of evidence. We can directly experience something in reality without understanding what it is or what is causing it. Therefore, conscious is real even though we don't fully understand it or what causes it.

So experiences and feelings can be part of evidence? good to know

Oh, so darkness is not a real condition, it is imagined.
Good to know that.

I will presume, for sake of charity, that your response above was an unintentional strawman?

My conclusion was that darkness does not describe a THING that exists but the ABSENCE of a thing (i.e. visible light). The absence of light is a real condition.

Q. Why is absence of a 'thing' real?
It's like saying nothing is real; nothing being the absence of something.

[Noose001]

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.

Jesus being the embodiment of God's message and we being the embodiment of Christ's message means that God still does what He does with so much success through each and everyone. This is part of one package called creation. In there we have so many other things including justice and mercy, life and death.

[bluegreenearth]

So experiences and feelings can be part of evidence? good to know

There are a few nuances that must be considered. For instance, if people experience an overwhelming sense of joy and peace while meditating or praying, those feelings are real because they are directly experienced. However, any god or spirit that might be attributed as the cause of those feelings will be imaginary until demonstrated otherwise. So, even though such experiences and feelings are real, their failure to distinguish gods or spirits as anything other than imaginary disqualifies them as evidence.

Q. Why is absence of a 'thing' real?
It's like saying nothing is real; nothing being the absence of something.

Again, it is important to consider the nuance. The absence of a thing describes a condition of reality in a particular space and time. It is that condition which is real. When no visible light exists in a particular space and time, the absence of visible light existing there is a real condition of that reality.

(Note: I realize this discussion has significantly deviated from the OP topic and apologize for the departure.)

[brunumb]

Someone has an experience in which an angel allegedly appeared to them and gave them a message. So, once again, what criteria would you use, and how you would apply them, to establish that the experienced angel was real and not imaginary? How does common understanding and reasoning suffice?

For subjective experience, we trust or mistrust; that's all. Common understanding is very different. It's common because everyone experiences it.

Common understanding does not mean that everyone experienced something. It just means that people are accepting the same explanation for someone's experience. You have not provided any way to establish the truth of an experience. What people believe or trust can be false. We need a definitive way of weeding those false experiences out.

[brunumb]

This answers the second question

Can i show it? No, i believe but i have reason to believe.

I was about to ask how you could show that your answer in the previous paragraph was true when I encountered the line above. If you can't show it, then your answer is of no value to anyone but yourself. It offers no more than an unsupported opinion and no reason for anyone else to accept it as true. You didn't even offer your reasons for believing it.