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.

[brunumb]

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?

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.

[brunumb]

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.

Those things do not get their meaning from each other regardless of how many times you say it. All you have done is repeated your rhetoric. To what end? What exactly is your point?

[Noose001]

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.

So is consciousness real? What would be the evidence?

Is darkness real? Is it real because we can see or is it real because we can not see?

[Noose001]

Those things do not get their meaning from each other regardless of how many times you say it. All you have done is repeated your rhetoric. To what end? What exactly is your point?

Far from rhetoric, it is true. There's no up in the absence of down. But again you missed the point, it is the mind that is the main reference point. It applies to everything.

[Noose001]

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.

[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.

But it doesn't. I will take your response as an admission that you really have no definitive way of distinguishing the real from the imaginary.

[bluegreenearth]

So is consciousness real? What would be the evidence?

Is darkness real? Is it real because we can see or is it real because we can not see?

Consciousness is not yet fully understood but is described as self-awareness. Since we directly experience consciousness, it necessarily exists because it would otherwise be impossible for us to have this awareness if it didn't exist. Therefore, the direct experience is the evidence.

Darkness is the label we assign to the absence of visible light. We don't often assign a label to the absence of something in reality because there is no thing existing there for which to assign a label. Therefore, darkness is not describing a thing that exists in reality.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #49]

No, you don't speak about man minus God.

Does this mean god is within and with all men? Even people who purposefully shun and discount and don't believe in god?

outside time there's no failure or success.

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

[Noose001]

But it doesn't. I will take your response as an admission that you really have no definitive way of distinguishing the real from the imaginary.

Consciousness is not yet fully understood but is described as self-awareness. Since we directly experience consciousness, it necessarily exists because it would otherwise be impossible for us to have this awareness if it didn't exist. Therefore, the direct experience is the evidence.

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).

Darkness is the label we assign to the absence of visible light. We don't often assign a label to the absence of something in reality because there is no thing existing there for which to assign a label. Therefore, darkness is not describing a thing that exists in reality.

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

[Noose001]

Does this mean god is within and with all men? Even people who purposefully shun and discount and don't believe in god?

Correct.

But purposefully shun and discount and don't believe may mean something different.

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

Within time.