Posts Tagged ‘practical’

“Did Jesus say anything not useful?”; a Humanist questions

July 15, 2013

There is a discussion between me and john zande; one could view it by clicking the dates of any comments below; that will open up the full discussion; the viewers are open to form their own opinion.

Since you brought it up, can you name anything (anything at all) that Jesus said which was actually new or useful?

paarsurrey Says: 

July 13, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Reply

@ johns zande

How would you define “useful”? Please

Jesus did not bring any new religion; he followed the Word revealed on Moses.

Neither Moses nor Jesus opposed science.

  paarsurrey Says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:16 pm  

Sir, I asked you to tell as to what you mean to be useful.

To me, Jesus, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Socrates, Zoroaster never said anything that was not useful.

I did not claim that Jesus said or invented anything new.

Did I say it?

OK, so you admit Jesus said absolutely NOTHING that was new or useful. Nothing at all. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Why, then, do you believe he was special in any way?

I am waiting for your defining “useful”.

I think atheists are reasonable people.

Please let me know as to what you understand from being useful.

You seriously want a definition for a word like useful? It’s the opposite of useless.

OK, but let’s say practical, functional, rational, sensible. Something that can be applied to the everyday betterment of one’s life, and the functioning of human societies.

Now i also asked for something “new” as well. Something new or useful.

You did ask new and useful; I admit.

Now please tell me anything which he said or did that was not practical, functional, rational, sensible?

Anybody among the viewers or readers are welcome to join this discussion. It is a friendly discussion not to bully anybody.

Everybody has a choice to be a humanist; I respect their choice.

Excuse me, but i asked you to tell me. Please don’t try and wriggle your way out of the question. It’s quite simple: name something (anything) new or useful said by Jesus.

 paarsurrey Says: 

July 15, 2013 at 1:41 pm |

I think it is an answer of your question in a way; if one cannot point out anything which he did or said as being not practical, functional, rational, sensible that fairly answers your question; though differently.

I know that many deeds and words are ascribed to Jesus wrongly that make his image mythical.

Jesus did not die on the cross; but Paul invented a religion out of it mythically which is know as Christianity; it has got nothing to do with Jesus.

In the name of justice and love; Christianity presents a very cruel God and concept of atonement of sins, which is neither practical and rational, nor natural and logical

June 12, 2009

Marianne says:

The apostles were not dull witted. Jesus spent 3 years training them and they were very smart and prepared to do their job.

To say they were somehow stupid is an insult to their teacher Jesus.

Paarsurrey says: But this is what the Bible presents them to be.

Marianne says:

They believed in the resurrection of Lazarus, because they were there when it happened.

Paarsurrey says:

Had they believed that Jesus had given life to a physically dead Lazarus; then they would have not deserted Jesus on the Cross’ they just ran away; actions speak more than the words sometimes.

Marianne says:

Jesus died on the cross, and then he rose from the dead.

Paarsurrey says:

If Jesus was physically dead, then his friends would have not been in hurry to take him to the tomb. They believed that Jesus was near-dead, hence they hurriedly took him to the tomb for treatment.

If they had believed that he must be physically and literally dead and was to be alive from the dead, they would have kept him in the open; at least for the Jews to see Jesus perform the miracle. That never happened; and they did not expect it. They knew that Jesus was not physically dead.

Marianne says:

HE never went to India. This is a fairy tale of unbelievers.

Paarsurrey says:

The scribes did not write the gospel books to record the facts for the public. They wrote it for a specific purpose to support Paul’s weird theological philosophy.

They did not mention accounts of Jesus’ earlier life; they had no interest in it.They did not have interest in what Jesus did after he went from Galilee. Jesus seeing their poor belief; secretly went to India.

Marianne says:

Unless you accept the atonement death of Jesus on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead, your faith is wrong, and your relationship with Jesus is = 0 (zero), meaningless.

Paarsurrey says:

There is no direct relationship between sins and Jesus’ supposed death on the Cross; which never happened. Sins are forgiven from the time of Adam to today under a separate process; whether Jesus died on the Cross or did not die on the Cross.My relationship with Jesus is meaningful; I believe in the same God Allah YHWH whom Jesus also believed.

Marianne says:

Jesus came to die for our sins. If you reject this, then you reject him.

Paarsurrey says:

Sorry, I don’t agree with you. Jesus came with a message from God Allah YHWH; that is why he was a Messenger and Prophet. Sins are forgiven by God Allah YHWH. Jesus has no authority to forgive sins; it is sole discretion of God Allah YHWH; this should be clearly understood.

If a passerby in the street committs a sin; you won’t kill your son for the atonement of the passerby’s sins. It will be a most cruel thing to do.

In the name of justice and love; Christianity presents a very cruel concept of God and atonement of sins, which is neither practical and rational nor natural and logical.

I respect your faith; but this is what I sincerely belive and with logical reasons.

You are welcome to express your faith; no compulsion; but it should not be blindfaith, it should be a reason oriented faith supported by reasons and logical arguments. Blindfaith is no faith.

I love Jesus and Mary as described in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

It is a cruel idea; to kill your son for the sins of your wife or for the sins of your daughter

June 4, 2009

Markparker1 says:

Paarsurrey, do you believe that if we repent of our sins and forsake them God will forgive us?

Paarsurrey says:

Yes; if we sin, we repent, forsake the sins and ask forgiveness from God Allah YHWH; He could in His discretion forgive us the sins. God Allah YHWH is Master of Everything, he has created everything; and he has not to take permission from anybody to forgive the sins.

God Allah YHWH is the Judge; if he forgives a wrong doing human being under the above procedure very mercifully and for the sake of humanity, I don’t find any injustice in it. It is the question of love and mercy of Him towards the human being; there is no discrepancy in it.

This is very rational, practical and very logical; we all experience it in our family. We forgive mistakes and sins of our daughters and sons; and nobody challenges it or says that it is unfair. In fact everybody understands that it is quite natural.

This has been going on from ages to ages; from the time of Adam to the time when Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position and when he got cured of the injuries infliceted on the Cross; he secretly migrated to India.

Now comes the cunning Paul- an enemy of Jesus; with a new idea never believed by Jesus and Mary, and the sinful scribes of the Gospels tow his line.The give a new meaning of Jesus tribulations on the Cross; in the absence of Jesus while he was in India.

Paul’s idea is neither truthful, nor practical, or rational or logical or natural. It is a cruel idea; to kill your son for the sins of your wife or for the sins of your daughter or for the sins of a stranger- a man in the street. It is a mockery of Justice. In fact it is a sin to beleive in it or to act on it.

Sorry, I don’t agree with Paul; I won’t buy his weird philosphy.

I love Jesus and Mary as beautifully described in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim


%d bloggers like this: