Why so many different opinions of the meaning here? Do9esn't that suggest that there is no truth to be found? It was a Jew talking Hebrew about Israel and Jerusalem. None of it applies to Christians in America in the 21st century.
You are confusing Christ´s teachings with the propaganda of Christ Inc/Plc. There is nothing wrong with Christ´s teachings, only in what others have done to them after his time. So what specific defferences are you referring. Matthew Mark Luke refer to "branches" which is why some languages have "Branch Sunday" as opposed to Palm (only John) Sunday. the Word is a part of our language, but as far as the message goes, which Word is used makes no difference to the message. Which in this case, is merely a tradition grandfathered into the current Bible anyway.
You are confusing Christ´s teachings with the propaganda of Christ Inc/Plc.
?We only have what the propaganda machines tell us? The teaching of Jesus were lost when we took them out of his native tongue. Jesus didn't leave us any written notes.
Differences? Is Jesus the son of God or just a rabbi? Is he the king of the Jews or the savior of Greeks? What do we need to do to be "saved"? Who goes to heaven? Just the Mormons? No two religions agree with each other. Not even any two people of the same religion agree on everything. The religion is chaos. How about Buddhists? Are they saved? Islamists think they are the saved ones. If man cannot truly know god all religions must be wrong.
Is atheism the answer or just another hate-based argument. The flaw with ath3eism/religion is in mankind. We, as a whole, are too stupid to have these answers. We can't answer the god question yet many feel a need to have an answer anyway. So we make up bullshit that satisfies us and these are the freakin' idiots that vote.
Partially true, but not a valid generality.
Here is how this works, If we pretend that he was a real person, preached something, and had a following. Then analyze the reported second hand messages, there is a disconnect in that the Bible is in conflict with itself.
So, if one takes, all the present rules, that are considered negative today, they only go back to about 100 years after Christ´s life on earth. At the same time, the positive ones, that are in conflict, predate the time the Bible was written, and consistant with the positive rules of most classical religions, basicly summed up in "do unto others", and respect nature. Everything else is basicly selfish and man made. As for "if man cannot truly know god all religions must be wrong" this is not a logical conclusion if one takes the positive things the religions of today promote, which are shared by all religions. So if there is an entity called "god" who fits the definition of a specific set of religions, then that god must be consistant unto himself, thus discounting all the man made rules promoted by "god inc/plc".
For example, taking only the peoples of the book, all of them have some rules that are consistant and practical in their context. The problem today, is that even if the context changes, the valid rules of thses religions remane valid, while the contextual rules slowly get discredited.
Here are some examples during my life time.
1. legal abortions, equal rights for women, gay marriages, all of which fit under the blanket of "do unto others" and respect nature.
2. In the RC thinking,there is the concept of original sin, meaning that to be "saved" one must pass through the ritual of baptism. This is theologicly and logicly unsound, if one believes in a pro-active just god, who rewards or punishes based on an individual´s net worth. So since 1967, Baptism, is no longer the first step on the path to heaven, as "Limbo" has been shut down, it is now an initiation ceremoney into a religious community, and has nothing to do with saving one´s soul.
While religiously unsophisticated people are unhappy that the baptestries have been closed, and private parties have been replaced by public baptisms during a regular church service, that is what is now the rule, even though the older concept was discredited at the time of the French revolution.
There were no religious marriages until after 1000 years after Christ. Gradually after that time for both RCs and Prods, the religious ritual was a requirement for Christians, and divorce was legally impossible without a lengthly and costly court case Again the turning point against this was the French revolution, which did not apply equally everywhere I the U.S. no fault divorce only became legal in California when Reagan was governor. For the RCs the process was incremental, sarting in 67, now under Pope Frances, divorced people with living ex mates, are no longer excommunicated
The orthodox Jewish male chauvinist element, found today in Islam and traditional Jews, became the rule around 300 years after Christ, who had nothing to say on the subject, women christians lots status at that time, no more deaconesses, Mary Magdaline becomes a prostitute, instead of an apostle. Toay, the RCs have returned Mary Magaline to apotle status, and in some churches there are women, without title or costume, saying a mass that is only lacking about 5% of the mass celebrated by priests. Pope Frances,wants to re-establish deceonesses, big deal, it has lready heppened, so all the pope is doing is giving a titleto a woman for a job she is lready doing, work which was forbidden bere 1967.
The old rules were based on human traditions, reinforcing traditional power trip. the "new" rules are not a contraiction, simply a correction for illogical errors made in a different ontext. It shocks, traditional Catholics, and uninfrmed Protestants to discover that ex-wife (church wedding, civil divorce-not annulment) is married to a Roman Catholic priest who serves parish. [two supposed broken rules, unheard of when I was a child: divorcee remarried, and notlving in sin and a licensed, e.g. non defrocket priest, running a parish. Compare that to a recent court case in the U.S. where the manager of a mobile home park, attempted to evict a white woman from her trailer, because it turns out she by local laws, still on he books) was "shacking up" with Black an, to whom she was legally married under the U.S. Constitution.
Note that there no text in the Bible that defines race, or unarried people living toather, or even eligious marriages.
So what do we need Jesus for? We can judge laws without this imaginary god. We made laws before Jesus, before god and the bible.
The old rules were based on human traditions, reinforcing traditional power trip. the "new" rules are not a contraiction, simply a correction for illogical errors made in a different ontext
?Again, so what do we need god for? Can Buddhists live by laws they create without the help of Jesus?
Religion is just a huge business franchise. The religion authorizes a franchise just like McDonalds. It is a business, and a huge one.
We don´t need the Jewish, Christian, Muslim God today as explained by the religious practitioners.
Well for one thing we do though, that is to keep those who de believe in these practitions in line, because
they have missed the basic message, that the founders of these religions taught, being all caught up in the
out of date, out of context, picky regs that distract for the original messages.
Jesus had nothing negative to say about sex, marriage, abortions, homosexuality, working on Sunday.
As applied today most of these issues are contrary to his reported teachings.
The American use of the word Jihad, has very little to do with the bulk of writings on it in the Koran.
Most of the 10 commandments that southern judges want to post in their courtrooms, are not only
contrary to the teachings of Jesus in application, and some are unconstitutional as well.
religion (e.g. lower case "R") is neutral, and can be good or bad, depending on who is preaching, what his power trip, or knik is.
By definition, Americanism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, are all religions. And all four suffer from the same problem as
organized religions of today in that they were all initiated as what some thought was a valid solution to a human problem. It
is unilateral power trip interpretations, and human selfishnes that have brought us to where we are today.
Examples: it is a good thing to rest one day of 7, if possible, and if something more important does not come up.
Honoring one´s parents,if they deserve it is a good thing.
Adultry has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with ownership and honoring a concept.
If one never coveted anything, there would never be any progress.
Yet our governments, pretend to be religiously neutral, but have decided itis better for my sould, America, if I sit in tax supported hurches, listening to irrelevant sermons and/or paying lip services to archaec retuals, then quietly sitting at my local bar across the street reading the paper and having brunch. Who is to say that what the tax supported church across the street, is any better for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, then my tax paying bar owner.
Which laws require a god?
"which laws require a god"
Not sure of your context, today under the constitutions of most western countries, in theory there are no laws that require a god.
However by tradition, some are implied, so that those who have strong beliefs in specific religions get up set, when deistic traditions are not followed.
Example while there is no justification for the term "so help me God", some people get upset, when the formula is not used.
After the American revolution, the King James Bible, was a part of the curriculum in American public education.
The fact that it is doctrinal, is the reason why the Catholic school system in the U.S. is the largest unpublic one, because Catholics resented their kids going
to school where a Bible in which they don´t believe was used. Starting from there, as America became more sophisticated, eventually the courts under
separation of church and state, banned the Bible as such from the curriculum in public schools. The result is the myth that the liberals banned God from the schools,
because they are confused, when only the promotion of doctrial teaching is forbidden.
The various laws, giving tax breaks to religious entities, and deductions for donations, implies that "God" has some favored status.
There are still many laws that are based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, that only exist, if there is a particular entity called "god".
Fortunately based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we are moving away from "laws requiring a god", unfortunately not far or fast enough.
Here is an interesting observation of the relative positions of left and right in this issue.
Here in Mallorca, unlike America we don´t have a religión that falls under the cover of patriotism. So we don´t have to take the flag down at night, or treat it as a secred object.
Because of weather, our oficial flag, gets in rather bad condition. So every year we have the equivalent of flag day when we fly a new one. The date commemorates, when the
flag was first raised in our capital evening of 30 December to sundown on 31 December. There is a parade, with embers of the parliament carrying the new flag and setting it up
and this includes it being blessed in the Cathedral. When we last had a conservative president, all of Parliament was supposed to attend, and the president, who did one of the readings
during the mass, sat in a special chair, in front of the congregation. However, when we have a socialist president, as we do now. only conservative MP´s come and get special seating, and the president, does not process in with the bishop, does not do the readings, does not sit in a "throne", but simply walks in the side door like everyone else, her only perk is a seat in the front pew. When I arrived 15 years ago, I noticed that the mayor of Palma, conservative had a two foot high crucifix on her desk, when she was replaced by a socialist, it disappeared without comment, Then we got a conservative, who was shown on TV, replacing it, big deal, sending a message that God and the conservatives work togather, Now we have a socialist, and not only has the crucifix disappeared, but so has the king´s picture. .
In the U.S. consulate, the only symbol of extraterritorality, was the usual American symbol at the door, and an American flag vertical in the corner of the receptian room. Our present cónsul, Bush appointment (reward for campaign support), Has a huge American flag covering one Wall. The staff is only two, cónsul and secretary, present secretary is not a U.S. citizen, speaks English poorly, native Guatamalan, speaks Spanish, and does not understand Catalá, the local language. A few months back, I noticed the huge Amaericn flag covering one wall, so huge that while it fit lengthwise, it was too wide, so reaching from celing to floor only 11 stripes are visible, the other two folded against the wall and tacked against the back. As a former scout, and marine, where flag eticate is taught, I commented to the non American secretary that the flag as displayed is ilegal. She did not understand, so I explained, and suggested she ention it to the cónsul (who is almost never there, and only sees people by appointment. When I returned the next time the huge flag was gone, and replaced with a smaller one, that did not touch the floor, and only covered about 75% of the wall. The secretary remembered me, and noticed that I checked the flag, but did not say anything.
Fortunately based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we are moving away from "laws requiring a god", unfortunately not far or fast enough.
Religion is very much a part of our history. I just wish it would die faster.
Not much more than two hundred years ago we looked at the night sky, saw the Milky at and considered that to be the universe. We had no concept of galaxies. Mankind was only a few thousand years old. We read our bibles. We travelled by horse. Read by candle light. No electricity. Little to no plumbing. Look how far we have come in the last one hundred years. Do we thank god for this, or thank the godless?
Note that the sedes of where we should go, come from Europeans educated in a Christian environment.
Quakers, do not require a belief in a god for membership, were outcasts in the U.K. because of their heresy.
By their written statements, the majority of the "sainted" founding fathers of Americ, do not fit the faith
of those self identified Christians, who honor them, and would be considered non Christian by today´s
Christian right. The majority of supposed evidence for Washington´s Chrisianity is bogus, as he and the
majority of the signers of the declaation of Independence, and the Constitutio would be called unitarians,
another "Christian" religión that does not require a belief in the Christian god, and whose written statements
supposedly in support of Christianity, would have them as classified as non Christians, by the present Christian right.