Quantcast
Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

Forums - General Discussion - Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

michael_stutzer said:
Being thankful to a god or any of its sidekicks is always baffling fo me. I am always thankful to my good friends, because they always help me when I am in distress. I am thankful to my doctors, because they help me live a healthier life. I am thankful to my teachers, because they thought me how to read. God did not give me anything that I need. I did not exist. I was fine. He gave me a life with financial difficulties, health problems, an environment riddled with wars and I know for a fact that I have it much better than most. What is there to be thankful about, I wonder.

If anything , he should be thankful as we brought some joy to his lonely life. He should work much harder to please us.

I work in emergency services... The amount of times I have seen someone rescued... And the rescued person thanks God instead of the person rescuing them is actually rather baffling.
God doesn't send us to save anyone.

Eagle367 said:
Pemalite said:

You aren't really providing anything. Enjoy.

FYI. We all have lives and yet still find time to converse on the forum to an appropriate degree.

There's a difference thoith between thoughtful long and carefully constructed dialogue and snappy 2 minute answers like the one I'm giving now. The closed discussion was a serious one in my opinion and requires thought, not quick snappy comebacks. But sometimes I'm more busy and sometimes I'm less, so if I had the time, I would've given an actual reply

I am more than happy to wait as long as required for you to garner the appropriate amount of time for a proper reply.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
EricHiggin said:

Without religion, it would be tough to scientifically reason that stopping Hitler was the right thing to do. If he and his people are tougher, smarter, more organized, etc, why not let them advance? Isn't that the reason for allowing tech to advance, because it's better than what exists now in terms of benefiting those who use that tech to their advantage? Tech may not have feelings now, but what about if we ever create true AI? Are we not allowed to discard and toss the old outdated units aside because they are, or seem conscious?

Hitler's entire war was partly based on Religion and Anti-Religious rhetoric. (I.E. Antisemitism.)
The entire war in the Middle east, The Twin Towers... All of that, is because of Religion.

And the reason why we wouldn't let him advance is because of the millions that lost their lives, you don't need religion to be moral.
Besides, Science doesn't actually care about moralistic points of view, that is a human input, science is just there to explain the natural world.

Partly. It was mostly fueled by the belief that the Germans were the superior race. The reason we hold human life at the highest level, is because of religion. Logically, allowing other people to take resources that you (your people, your Country) could eventually need, is a bad idea. Allowing other people to advance and potentially bring war and death to you, is a bad idea. If climate change is indeed correct, even with technological advancements, millions and more may suffer, and partially because of too many people being part of the pollution problem. If Thanos could make half of the pop vanish into thin air, it would solve a lot of problems for the time being. If those people have no ties to you whatsoever, and don't even impact your life indirectly, then why worry about their well being? Animals will kill other animals, even the same species, even by blood, for the 'dumbest' reasons. Why? No religion. Just survival.

Pemalite said: 

EricHiggin said: 

Jesus is like the necessary scientific test to prove the theory. Let's just say God thought he knew everything, like some humans do, but needed to put it to the test physically to prove it.

Nah.
Another hypothesis is that Jesus was just a con-man who conned billions of people with fairy-tales and magic tricks.

Maybe, but if Jesus really was a con man, as a con man, he's put billions of non con men to shame since his time on this planet. What does that make us?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Partly. It was mostly fueled by the belief that the Germans were the superior race. The reason we hold human life at the highest level, is because of religion.

I don't hold human life at a high-level because of religion, nor do the majority of people I work with. - I am in multiple rescue agencies.

I hold human life to a high level because of empathy... And I have empathy because of experience and not wanting to be in the position someone else is in because of various electro-chemical processes that govern things like pain, sadness and general uncomfort.

Religion isn't a prerequisite to being a good, thoughtful individual... If religion is "good". - Then 10's of millions of people wouldn't have been murdered in their Gods name, the Christian God being no exception.

EricHiggin said:

Logically, allowing other people to take resources that you (your people, your Country) could eventually need, is a bad idea. Allowing other people to advance and potentially bring war and death to you, is a bad idea. If climate change is indeed correct, even with technological advancements, millions and more may suffer, and partially because of too many people being part of the pollution problem. If Thanos could make half of the pop vanish into thin air, it would solve a lot of problems for the time being. If those people have no ties to you whatsoever, and don't even impact your life indirectly, then why worry about their well being? Animals will kill other animals, even the same species, even by blood, for the 'dumbest' reasons. Why? No religion. Just survival.

Now you are delving into hypotheticals.

There are large swathes of the world where religion is leveraged to ban things like contraception which assists the out-of-control population growth. - Many religions are also against Abortion.

Maybe Religion is actually the real problem?

The more advanced an economy generally becomes, the more secular it generally becomes and generally the lower it's natural population growth via births and deaths becomes and thus needs to be bolstered via immigration.
I know correlation isn't causation, but it's an interesting note.

EricHiggin said:

Pemalite said: 

Nah.
Another hypothesis is that Jesus was just a con-man who conned billions of people with fairy-tales and magic tricks.

Maybe, but if Jesus really was a con man, as a con man, he's put billions of non con men to shame since his time on this planet. What does that make us?

Well it would make me someone who isn't gullible.

But how would he put billions of non-con men to shame?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
EricHiggin said:

Partly. It was mostly fueled by the belief that the Germans were the superior race. The reason we hold human life at the highest level, is because of religion.

I don't hold human life at a high-level because of religion, nor do the majority of people I work with. - I am in multiple rescue agencies.

I hold human life to a high level because of empathy... And I have empathy because of experience and not wanting to be in the position someone else is in because of various electro-chemical processes that govern things like pain, sadness and general uncomfort.

Religion isn't a prerequisite to being a good, thoughtful individual... If religion is "good". - Then 10's of millions of people wouldn't have been murdered in their Gods name, the Christian God being no exception.

You think because your nice to people that they won't harm you? What did the Jews ever do to Hitler? What did the Dems ever do to Trump? Are religion and survival one and the same? If another group of people are going to kill you and all of your people, does it matter what religion they, or you hold at that point?

Pemalite said: 

EricHiggin said: 

Logically, allowing other people to take resources that you (your people, your Country) could eventually need, is a bad idea. Allowing other people to advance and potentially bring war and death to you, is a bad idea. If climate change is indeed correct, even with technological advancements, millions and more may suffer, and partially because of too many people being part of the pollution problem. If Thanos could make half of the pop vanish into thin air, it would solve a lot of problems for the time being. If those people have no ties to you whatsoever, and don't even impact your life indirectly, then why worry about their well being? Animals will kill other animals, even the same species, even by blood, for the 'dumbest' reasons. Why? No religion. Just survival.

Now you are delving into hypotheticals.

There are large swathes of the world where religion is leveraged to ban things like contraception which assists the out-of-control population growth. - Many religions are also against Abortion.

Maybe Religion is actually the real problem? 

The more advanced an economy generally becomes, the more secular it generally becomes and generally the lower it's natural population growth via births and deaths becomes and thus needs to be bolstered via immigration.
I know correlation isn't causation, but it's an interesting note.

So your saying people should bang their brains out and expect to get away without dealing with the logical consequences? Don't live life like everything is easy and free seems pretty logical to me.

Typically that path leads to the demise of that economy/society eventually, and not all that long down the road. Religion is like a large main block of the base of a pyramid. Slowly chip away at that block and the whole thing crumbles.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said: 

Pemalite said: 

Nah.
Another hypothesis is that Jesus was just a con-man who conned billions of people with fairy-tales and magic tricks.

Maybe, but if Jesus really was a con man, as a con man, he's put billions of non con men to shame since his time on this planet. What does that make us?

Well it would make me someone who isn't gullible.

But how would he put billions of non-con men to shame?

Sometimes being gullible is necessary. More so in large, major, immediate events. Well as far as we know he actually practiced what he preached, and what he preached was pretty logical and peaceful. Not entirely, but in comparison, peaceful. How many of us can say the same about ourselves?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Pemalite said: 

Now you are delving into hypotheticals.

There are large swathes of the world where religion is leveraged to ban things like contraception which assists the out-of-control population growth. - Many religions are also against Abortion.

Maybe Religion is actually the real problem? 

The more advanced an economy generally becomes, the more secular it generally becomes and generally the lower it's natural population growth via births and deaths becomes and thus needs to be bolstered via immigration.
I know correlation isn't causation, but it's an interesting note.

So your saying people should bang their brains out and expect to get away without dealing with the logical consequences? Don't live life like everything is easy and free seems pretty logical to me.

Typically that path leads to the demise of that economy/society eventually, and not all that long down the road. Religion is like a large main block of the base of a pyramid. Slowly chip away at that block and the whole thing crumbles.

Pemalite said:

Well it would make me someone who isn't gullible.

But how would he put billions of non-con men to shame?

Sometimes being gullible is necessary. More so in large, major, immediate events. Well as far as we know he actually practiced what he preached, and what he preached was pretty logical and peaceful. Not entirely, but in comparison, peaceful. How many of us can say the same about ourselves?

But how does that hold up to the fact that the most prosperous nations are also among the most secular while the poorest nations are fairly religious?

Jesus was a human like all of us and had the same human flaws like we do. So yes, I can say about myself that I am at least quite similar to a human like Jesus.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
0D0 said:
Torillian said:

I'm a biochemist and your posts are not offensive, but they are dismaying. It's the same reasoning behind detrimental viewpoints like antivaxxer, anti-GMO, and climate change denial, hence my question about how far you take this science skepticism. 

As a scientist then, I believe you must talk about science like this: "Some studies suggest", "There's a consensus about", "There are some researches that found out", "It's been proved", etc.

However, you know that's not how most people talk about science. They talk like "I saw a guy on the telly from Oxford saying that this can kill me, I'll stop having this now". That's the exactly attitude I'm against with and that's why food examples explain my point better.

I used points that are easily identifiable like food and the ice age. You know that the new ice age and global cooling were covers of magazines like Time and every grandfather of ours will remember those talks. As a scientist you can say that I can't take Time magazine to back any argument, but by taking it I mean that there were enough scientists and universities back then studying this (and evolving it to the current climate change thing) to the point that the subject become paper's covers and headlines. I'm not a scientists, but I've met scientists and university professors that remember all of this or have read about them. It's well known.

The food stuff, you also know that I don't need to source it, because its another easy to find out about topic. Every doctor in the 90's and before were saying to its patients that they should stop having butter and animal fat. Why? Because they had access to studies that told them so. Because it was indeed a consensus. My grandmother had a diet that banned eggs, animal fat and her doctor wanted her to have only margarine, because studies shown back then that it was the right way to protect her heart.

My mother on the other hand had a different experience. A few years ago her doctor encouraged her to use butter. He said that studies showed that butter is actually better than margarine and that all the fuss against butter, eggs and such was incorrect. She was surprised, she said "it's not what they used to tell on TV, they tell us to have those margarine that are good for the heart because the smart guys say so". More recent studies show that actually butter is better for the heart in reasonable levels. Some doctors now are even saying that we should stop having margarine entirely. The thing is pure gross chemistry stuff.

My father was a doctor and he never believed in such stuff. He kept having bacon, eggs and butter back then in the 80's and 90's even though every paper for doctors had articles saying that he should tell his patients to avoid animal fat or stop it entirely because it surely causes cholesterol according to many studies. He believed that vegetable fat was worse than animal, but he was called a "denier" or maybe an old bag doctor. He was right. Now there's all this "good animal cholesterol" thing.

Why bring sources to back this? Anyone in the 90's and 80's defending butter, milk and eggs was called nutter. In old films, from the sixties, you see kids getting home and going to the fridge to a have a good milk glass. The world got so against it to the point that films started changing milk to juice. Juice is another issue, tho. Doctors encouraged kids to have as much juice as they can, instead of milk. Today, doctors explain that more recent studies show that actually juice has too much sugar, a glass of natural orange juice can have much more sugar than a coke can and sugar is far worse than fat. Those are all doctors that read doctors' papers and studies and it all shows how researches having been changing a lot what we know about food. And this is all well known. This is basic pub chat. You can go to your GP and talk to them about it, if he's old enough in the profession, he knows. Asking me to bring sources to this is not necessary and saying that I'm stupid exactly because I brought the easy examples that everyone knows, is malice. All my examples are common knowledge and easily verifiable examples of how science was wrong and as you say "has to correct itself from time to time".

My apologies for the late reply, I knew this would take some time to think about and write out and life has been busy. 

I agree that laymen talk about scientific research in the way you describe, using single studies and modeling their decisions around what the media portrays the conclusions to be. I think that skepticism of any specific study or what is read in the media is healthy. My concern is that if one takes that too far you start to disbelieve things that become detrimental. The example of climate change is an apt one, while I would not hang my hat on a single study or a story in the media, meta-analyses of studies I find quite trustworthy to get an idea of the consensus of the scientific community and that is overwhelmingly on the side of "it's happening and we're causing it". The line "well at one point you all thought it was going to be global cooling" is often used as a way to dismiss the current understanding even though I don't think there's been any meta analysis done of any time range that indicated that the consensus was global cooling. Hence my concern that you are dismissing the findings of current climate change science based on a perceived consensus from decades ago. 

I disagree with the example about having a consensus that butter was to be avoided. At least, not a consensus among scientists though I would agree there was a consensus among doctors seeing patients. Biological questions like that are incredibly complex and I would be surprised to find a consensus among scientists in that field about any given food to avoid as there are so many variables to account for. You can appeal to common sense but you were not interacting with scientists doing these kind of studies, rather you were interacting with the doctors and media trying to make recommendations based off how they perceived these studies. Similar to your original example of how one should take research and how those not in the field often do, I suspect that the differences in your grandmother, mother, and father's dietary recommendations are due to similar factors. 

All that said, my field does not involve anything as macro as the climate or dietary effects on human health so this is speaking solely within my understanding of how research is done and published in my field. It's possible that those fields are more apt to make more direct and concrete conclusions (with less "outs" if a particular hypothesis ends up incorrect) based on their findings which lead media to make more sensationalist headlines, but regardless I think the doctors acted reasonably because all they can do is base their recommendations off their understanding of recent findings. 

Overall, I cannot accept "common sense" understanding to tell me what the consensus of the scientific community is or was and I hope that you are not dismissing current consensus based on how you perceive it to have changed in the past. Science could always be wrong about something, but the methods for research and publication are rigorous enough that I think it's best to trust the scientific consensus unless you know of particular issues with the studies that make up that consensus. This is why I dislike the sentiment you put forth in the original post, because it can easily lead to viewpoints that are completely against everything we've come to understand about reality like Anti-vaxxer, anti-GMO, anti-human caused climate change, and even things as ridiculous as globe denial. 



...

EricHiggin said:
Pemalite said:

I don't hold human life at a high-level because of religion, nor do the majority of people I work with. - I am in multiple rescue agencies.

I hold human life to a high level because of empathy... And I have empathy because of experience and not wanting to be in the position someone else is in because of various electro-chemical processes that govern things like pain, sadness and general uncomfort.

Religion isn't a prerequisite to being a good, thoughtful individual... If religion is "good". - Then 10's of millions of people wouldn't have been murdered in their Gods name, the Christian God being no exception.

You think because your nice to people that they won't harm you? What did the Jews ever do to Hitler? What did the Dems ever do to Trump? Are religion and survival one and the same? If another group of people are going to kill you and all of your people, does it matter what religion they, or you hold at that point?

That's not it at all. Not entirely sure how you even came to that conclusion.
Religion isn't a pre-requisite to a good life and being a decent human being, I am literal evidence for that.

EricHiggin said:

So your saying people should bang their brains out and expect to get away without dealing with the logical consequences? Don't live life like everything is easy and free seems pretty logical to me.

What?
There are consequences. Like being dead.

The thing with Religion is that you can be an absolutely abhorrent disgusting rapist... But if you pray hard enough, you will get into Heaven. - Where is the consequence there?

EricHiggin said:

Typically that path leads to the demise of that economy/society eventually, and not all that long down the road. Religion is like a large main block of the base of a pyramid. Slowly chip away at that block and the whole thing crumbles.

Nah. Plenty of secular nations get on fine without religion. It's not a required foundation for a functioning society, it never was, never will.

EricHiggin said:


Sometimes being gullible is necessary. More so in large, major, immediate events. Well as far as we know he actually practiced what he preached, and what he preached was pretty logical and peaceful. Not entirely, but in comparison, peaceful. How many of us can say the same about ourselves?

If you think Jesus was a nice guy... Think again.

* Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword.  - Matthew 10:34 - Jesus wanted war.

* Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. -  Matthew 10:21 - Families will be torn a part by Jesus.

* Jesus condemned entire cities to death and eternal torment because they don't care for his preaching. - Matthew 11:20

* Jesus criticized the Jewish people for not murdering their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. - Mark 7:9

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Bible is really a terrible, disgusting book, just like the Torah and Quran... And Jesus is a disgusting individual, God, Son of God, Human or Fairy-tale or not.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 22 January 2019

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

vivster said:
EricHiggin said:

Pemalite said: 

Now you are delving into hypotheticals.

There are large swathes of the world where religion is leveraged to ban things like contraception which assists the out-of-control population growth. - Many religions are also against Abortion.

Maybe Religion is actually the real problem? 

The more advanced an economy generally becomes, the more secular it generally becomes and generally the lower it's natural population growth via births and deaths becomes and thus needs to be bolstered via immigration.
I know correlation isn't causation, but it's an interesting note.

So your saying people should bang their brains out and expect to get away without dealing with the logical consequences? Don't live life like everything is easy and free seems pretty logical to me.

Typically that path leads to the demise of that economy/society eventually, and not all that long down the road. Religion is like a large main block of the base of a pyramid. Slowly chip away at that block and the whole thing crumbles.

Pemalite said:

Well it would make me someone who isn't gullible.

But how would he put billions of non-con men to shame?

Sometimes being gullible is necessary. More so in large, major, immediate events. Well as far as we know he actually practiced what he preached, and what he preached was pretty logical and peaceful. Not entirely, but in comparison, peaceful. How many of us can say the same about ourselves?

But how does that hold up to the fact that the most prosperous nations are also among the most secular while the poorest nations are fairly religious?

Jesus was a human like all of us and had the same human flaws like we do. So yes, I can say about myself that I am at least quite similar to a human like Jesus.

Well in America for example, the left has seen the light and is making it super clear that the faithless white devils are destroying the world. If only we were more like the poorer religious nations, then everything would be set right. Seems ironic the much more religious rural Americans (in the south) are looked down upon by many, considering they are the majority who lay down their lives for a tonne of people, not just Americans, who will never be tied to them in any manner. I wonder why they are willing to do that, while so many other non religious Americans aren't? It's also pretty normal for poor people to become religious. When you have nothing what else are you going to do?

There is also the case that most people in prosperous nations, like the west, tend to believe in the overall rules and guidelines the society abides by, for the most part. The west is built on religious teachings and values. That may not be evident in today's world, which it's not for most, since people are more concerned about what's on the surface then what's underneath.

Can you turn water into wine without physically tampering with it? Physically heal people by simply touching them? I can't as a typical human, can you? If people had that kind of power, which let's assume can be used for good or bad depending on the person, how many of them would use it in the manner Jesus did, with vast restraint and for good?

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 22 January 2019

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Pemalite said: 

 

If you think Jesus was a nice guy... Think again.

* Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send [or bring] peace, but a sword.  - Matthew 10:34 - Jesus wanted war.

* Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. -  Matthew 10:21 - Families will be torn a part by Jesus.

* Jesus condemned entire cities to death and eternal torment because they don't care for his preaching. - Matthew 11:20

* Jesus criticized the Jewish people for not murdering their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. - Mark 7:9

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Bible is really a terrible, disgusting book, just like the Torah and Quran... And Jesus is a disgusting individual, God, Son of God, Human or Fairy-tale or not.

I just stopped by for a comment and i won't reply back. So, feel free to not read the rest.

"Matthew 10:34 - Jesus wanted war."
The reasoning is that Jesus will eventually be something that some won't accept while others will. Thus, division will occur (intolerance).

" Jesus condemned entire cities to death and eternal torment because they don't care for his preaching. - Matthew 11:20"
No. "Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent." 
What this means is very simple: There were those who repented and were saved and there were those who didn't repent, despite being given reasons to do so, and weren't saved. That's the basis of Christianity: either you follow the path salvation or you don't. But you can't complain after you willingly made the wrong choice.

"Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. -  Matthew 10:21 - Families will be torn a part by Jesus."
You should read the rest:  "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me"

"Jesus criticized the Jewish people for not murdering their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. - Mark 7:9"
He criticized this: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!" and "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
The idea behind this was to show how the followed their own ideas and not the ones that God gave them, yet they acted as if they followed the latter.


Just an advice, maybe you should rethink how you express yourself about other people's beliefs, lest you get a ban for no good reason.



EricHiggin said:

It's also pretty normal for poor people to become religious.

Poor people tend to also have sub-par education. - Correlation?

DélioPT said:

"Matthew 10:34 - Jesus wanted war."
The reasoning is that Jesus will eventually be something that some won't accept while others will. Thus, division will occur (intolerance).

That is your interpretation, which deviates from what it says in plain black and white in it's literal form.

DélioPT said:

" Jesus condemned entire cities to death and eternal torment because they don't care for his preaching. - Matthew 11:20"

No. "Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent."

What this means is very simple: There were those who repented and were saved and there were those who didn't repent, despite being given reasons to do so, and weren't saved. That's the basis of Christianity: either you follow the path salvation or you don't. But you can't complain after you willingly made the wrong choice.

No. It's very clear what it says.

Either way, even if your hypothesis was true, your God is still a cruel God for not simply saving everyone, but would rather large swathes of the population to suffer.

What is the point of your God offering free will if you aren't allowed to exercise it, but instead you have to conform and fall inline to it's abhorrent doctrine?

DélioPT said:

"Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. -  Matthew 10:21 - Families will be torn a part by Jesus."

You should read the rest:  "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me"
 

Still doesn't make it any better I am afraid. It just tacks on hatred as a side-effect.

DélioPT said:

"Jesus criticized the Jewish people for not murdering their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. - Mark 7:9"

He criticized this: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!" and "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
The idea behind this was to show how the followed their own ideas and not the ones that God gave them, yet they acted as if they followed the latter.
  

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7-9&version=NIV

"You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’" 

 

DélioPT said:

Just an advice, maybe you should rethink how you express yourself about other people's beliefs, lest you get a ban for no good reason.

  

 

I am literally copy-pasting verses from the Bible. - If what I have posted causes offense... You should probably change religions.
Feel free to whack that report button on any of my posts though.

At the end of the day, Jesus wasn't a nice, caring individual if the Bible, Torah and Quran are to be believed, the science-fiction claims where he performed various "miracles" are yet to be substantiated with any empirical evidence... And in-fact the Quran and Torah perspective on Jesus is actually different from the Bible.
And considering the Torah is the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, shouldn't that be the one that takes priority?



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--