I find that pretty far-fetched, personally. Feet washing was customary in those times, as many people did not wear shoes whilst roaming the country side; It was done whenever entering a home or place of rest. Why is it so strange that Jesus would wash his disciples feet? It is a sign of humility, and is a testament to his self-proclaimed intent of serving others (Matt 20:28).
Discriminatory against women? In that thread you act as if Jesus ordered the woman to come pamper him as he consoles in his male dominance. In reality, the woman is documented as comming in her own free will, and in doing this primarily acknowledges her past unrighteousness and renewed detication to God. Who says women never washed their feet? Most characters in the Bible are male, an undocumented female instance is really not so strange. The majority of women at the time were more confined to house work anyway. I don't deny the general Biblical predjudice against women (one of the major reasons I have started to abandon the religion), but Jesus is rarely documented as being anything but completely humble.
Also, since when are
feet a sexual object?
On another note, I wish you would post such arguments here, as it is rather difficult to comment on links.
So a character like him just speaks in vain, not concerned about the statements either for the moment or the posterity
I said no such thing. You are attaching meanings to verses that are not even applicable.
Once again, you gotta decide, do the words mean anything or is it all pure metaphore... Because, if everything is metaphore, then it can be interpreted in one way or another.
Does it have to be all or nothing? Some scriptures are litteral, others are metaphors. It does not take a great deal of literary knowledge to figure out which is which in most situations.
Then, it is pointless?
I believe There are multiple reasons for its inclusion.
One may be to highlight Judas' hypocracy and true character just before his betrayal:
Joh 12:4
One of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was going to betray him, asked, "Why wasn't this perfume sold for a high price and the money given to the poor?" (
Judas didn't say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief. He was in charge of the moneybag and carried the contributions)
Another is a judgement on intention ("She has done a beautiful thing for me. She has done this to prepare me for the day I will be placed in a tomb.")
There are plenty of figures in history and myth that are far bigger than Jesus in terms of character and gave examples more precious and words more inspired.
Perhaps. Still, that does not negate many good things in his teachings.
Once again, you seem to express the all or nothing mentality. Either Jesus was morally flawless and divinely inspired, or completely evil. You cannot deny that the majority of his words and actions were ethical. Perhaps some of his words were not exclusively good, and maybe he was not perfect (I have never denied the possibility). That does not negate his beneficial message.
When you pretend that Inquisition or war between Catholics and Protestants have nothing to do with religion and point in another direction, sorry, but "excuses" is the only word that comes to mind.
Of course religion plays a part. But the point was, it plays no more of a part than the many other views, customs, and ambitions that have divided humans for centuries.
Many people such as yourself share the view that religion is the bane of civilization. IMO, not only does religion play a limited role in the instigation of conflicts, but the absense of it would do precious little (if any) to benefit humanity. The spirit of civilization relies on God, whether or not he exists.
When somebody kills in the name of God, and believes it in his heart, you can blame bad influence or gullibility. But still religion is deeply involved.
Religion is ALL that is involved to some shallow minds. The aformentioned great antagonistic qualities in humans exist at the root of every conflict. Abate those and we will attain peace, religion or no religion.
How does it changes a lie into truth? If a lie makes you happy, it is still a lie.
Many people would consider your beliefs a lie, and would ask you the very same.
I don't see where you get off at making such blanket assertions of fact. You don't seem to like it when Christians do it.
Not really, unless you define knowledge in some queer unusual way.
Two people can define knowledge exactly the same, yet arrive at completely opposite conclusions.
Quite arrogant of you to profess your belief as anything more than opinon.
