Should Christ have done more?

[marco]

In many ways Christ is an embarrassment. I was thinking that if he were around in the present pandemic he would have done absolutely nothing about it. Instead of thundering on the earthly scene with challenges for Rome and large-scale improvements in man's way of living, he helped John smith with his sore ear and Mary Jane with her eye trouble. He had a kind of pop festival where he sang to the crowds and gave them free food for listening. Given the chance to show the world his divine passport he said, presumably to a grin from Pilate, "I have some private soldiers waiting in the sky, so watch out."

He's muddle- headed - "I'll die and come back with a knife, sitting on a cloud." What for? Had he said - "maybe in 2000 years time" his listeners would have laughed.

So - what is Christ's great legacy? The stuff we have is the Christmas wrapping paper of the Church - nothing inside it.

Is Christ a small man magnified by the Church?

If he really was divine, why did he not perform on a bigger stage instead of, say, catching lots of fish and saying they came from God?

[Diagoras]

Can you explain why atheist then write opinion about the stories here?

I see that your post has already been answered (twice) below by others, but I’ll just add two further points.

1) You may very well feel justified in pointing out examples of the same poor debate tactics that you see being used by others. However, you haven’t given any details, so that makes it harder for me to respond. Did you mean a particular post in this thread? Or some other topic in another forum? In debate, it’s always the case that providing evidence or logical reasoning will do much better to persuade other people of your viewpoint. Please don’t leave it up to me to guess who you meant by ‘atheist’ this time.

2) Even if you did give a clear example of someone only giving an opinion, that doesn’t really help to advance the debate. Saying (in effect), “well, you do it too!� is known as the tu quoque fallacy. Whether none of us, one of us or all of us are stating opinions, it doesn’t help us decide whether opinions over facts are good or bad or not.

[otseng]

Would it be fair to say you worship God despite being dispappointed at Almighty Gods ineptitude and misjudgements?

Moderator Comment

It's best not to presume what another believes. Instead, just ask for clarification of what they believe.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 17 by Red Wolf]

According to OT prophecies the Messiah’s arrival would usher in the end of sin, the end of suffering, peace and tranquility, one creed and one religion, one kingdom and one king, the resurrection of the dead, the abolishment of idolatry and false prophets, the gathering of the ten tribes of Israel, the building of the future temple, etc. etc. etc.

By my reckoning, Jesus was not the Messiah because he never accomplished any of those things. Instead of reluctantly abandoning their great hope, Christians have simply swept it all under the proverbial carpet to be revealed at some unspecified future date. Hardly a hook to hang your hat on.

[Mithrae]

If he really was divine, why did he not perform on a bigger stage instead of, say, catching lots of fish and saying they came from God?

Would a bigger, flashier performance impress you? For my part I tend to be more partial towards restraint than displays of power, a gentle word than a bellicose shout, the thinkers and teachers rather than the presidents and generals. You often speak of old hymns from your youth you still find moving; at the top of my very short list would be The Servant King.

Had Jesus bestrode the world as a colossus would that somehow prove or validate his divinity? Or would a bigger temporal footprint simply make it that much easier to dismiss all the most remarkable reports as mythologization of a great man? We still don't believe that Alexander was the son of Zeus no matter how much his armies accomplished.

And yes of course it was Alexander's armies and his generals, his logistics officers and his blacksmiths back home who conquered the Achaemenid empire. Is there really any basis for imagining that Alexander's personal contribution to that endeavour was any greater than Jesus' contribution to the growth of Christianity? Great men and women are only 'great' inasmuch as they manage to inspire, lead and teach others; they are simply the fulcrum which leverage strength of many others. Jesus was no leader and largely failed as a teacher, but was perhaps the most successfully inspiring figure in human history. It wasn't the stories of Peter or John or Paul who drew hundreds of thousands throughout the Roman Empire into the Christian fold despite sporadic and sometimes intense persecution - and I find it hard to imagine that their theologies were so brilliant as to be the reason either

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 19 by Elijah John]

I'm sorry if I worded the impression I got from, your post.


Elijah John, may I ask:

Do you worship God despite being dispappointed at Almighty Gods ineptitude and misjudgements?

I ask because even though neither of us believe Jesus to be God it seems to me He (God) could well be accused of the same shortcoings as Jesus and a defence for GOD might well rest on the same arguments as those proposed for a defense of JESUS,


Your thoughts?



JW

[marco]

Again, why ask opinions, when they don’t matter here?

You nonetheless successfully give your opinion on events in the Bible, so in some ways they must matter. If you mean that despite offering your own view, it is not accepted, then I suppose we must keep trying to expose what we believe to be truth. Eventually if we are in possession of incontrovertible truth, we will prevail.

I think Jesus did great things by teaching what is said in the Bible. In Biblical point of view this “life� is only a temporary lesson, not meant to last forever. The focus is on higher matters. In Biblical point of view, it would be stupid to be obsessed with material world.

Then was Jesus stupid in resurrecting Lazarus, and even crying over his demise?

[marco]

Would a bigger, flashier performance impress you? For my part I tend to be more partial towards restraint than displays of power, a gentle word than a bellicose shout, the thinkers and teachers rather than the presidents and generals.

Flashier, no. Had he lectured when he was a baby, that might be something - the Muslim Jesus was eloquent after a few days of life, but I'm more sceptical about him that his Nazarene cousin.

Had Jesus bestrode the world as a colossus would that somehow prove or validate his divinity?

Well Caesar did. And aside from murdering Gauls he gave us a calendar. Jesus gave us clues to nothing at all, because he had no clue himself. His divinity has arisen from the imaginative powers of men who never knew him.

Is there really any basis for imagining that Alexander's personal contribution to that endeavour was any greater than Jesus' contribution to the growth of Christianity?

I think Alexander made a very practical contribution to the expansion of empire and to later civilisations. When Darius made him an offer his top general advised him to take it but Alexander did what Alexander did well, and went on to conquer the entire Persian Empire. Without him there would have been no conquests; without Napoleon there would have been no Grand Army.

The situation with Christ is different; we have a few tales of a minuscule portion of his life during which he spoke. That would have been the end of it had others not used his name as a selling point, though arguably Paul was selling himself. His deification grew over the centuries and his co-equality with the Father was just a theological nicety. It's dubious whether the giant churches do anything that Jesus recommended. They serve themselves. How easily was his importance swept aside when the trader Muhammad made himself God's final prophet.

I think when we hear that Jesus whimpered that he had lots and lots of angels waiting in the wings to fight, we can close the book and feel sorry for him.

It wasn't the stories of Peter or John or Paul who drew hundreds of thousands throughout the Roman Empire into the Christian fold

Perhaps ordinary folk are attracted by promises of treasure: the poor would inherit. Whatever reasons we put forward for the spread of Christianity, we must be ready for similar arguments for Islam, 600 years younger but already presenting a huge challenge.

[marco]

Christ's great legacy is the major religion that followed, however, all the credit might belong to the authors of the NT and the religious leaders that made use of them.

If his robe was used to make a tapestry, would he have been the tapestry maker? Jesus preached Judaism, with Yahweh given a cleaner face. The Church that rose in Rome built a kingship around a Pope, taking Christ's phrases and moulding them to extract authority. All that we have is Christ's name: no one works miracles; no one cures lepers; nobody stills the waves. It doesn't matter at all if after death there is just decay - who knows? Authority is built on credulity.

In exactly the same way powerful ayatollahs derive power from Muhammad's name, but in this case Muhammad had more of a direct contribution than did Jesus. And where Jesus talked, Muhammad delivered. And when Jesus said we cannot know what's in heaven, Muhammad gave saucy details.

[1213]

…Stories as evidence aren’t particularly compelling. And opinions of stories - even less so.

Can you explain why atheist then write opinion about the stories here?

Is it not rude to quote a statement posed of you, but to then ignore it and ask a totally different questions as a distraction and expect to be answered?

Sorry, I was just wondering why atheistic opinion are ok here. But, we can ignore that question and continue in other matters.

"Stories as evidence aren't particularly compelling".

I have no problem with that, all though I think that if we have witness testimony, it is some kind of evidence, even if not compelling.

Some persons opinion about the story of Paul Bunyan is even less compelling, do you not agree?

For me Paul Bunyan or his possible existence is meaningless, not important to know, even if true. That is why opinions about the story are also not very interesting or compelling. But again, sorry, this was only my opinion, and I try to reduce them to zero.

[1213]

…
Now if you (pl) had anything other than “I think�s or “I believe�s or succeeded in addressing a topic, far less of these would occur.

Is here anything else than “I thinks� or “I believes�? Can you show even one example of something else?