Jesus > Superman

[direction9]

things

please don't try to use your common sense and logic to try to explain the motivations of a universal deity
you might as well go on about the virtues of the banana

[super1man]

Superman is better than that fictional warmonger jesus. Superman can scratch his nose if it itches.

[David Walton]

Superman is better than that fictional warmonger jesus. Superman can scratch his nose if it itches.

Just out of curiosity, how do you come away with a reading of Christianity that paints Jesus as a 'warmonger'?

We are talking about the man who's said to have healed the high priest's servant's ear when the Roman and temple guard came to arrest him, and chastised his own disciple for cutting it off in the first place.

The same one who said, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?

[Surtur]

If Superman was a 2000 year old relevant historical figure, there would be wars/oppression/etc. carried out in his name. You remove religion from the Crusaders for instance, they still would've happened. People perverting religion to fulfill their own selfish desires is not the fault of religion. It's the fault of people for being bad/selfish/evil what have you. Religion is an easy thing to twist and bend to your whims. You remove religion from those people and they would find something else to twist and bend to their whims to achieve their selfish desires.

If Superman gained a foothold as a legit historical idea that people believed in, I promise you, there would be cults, there would be wars and there would be oppression all in the name of Superman. He would become just as easily perverted as religion is.

Since some versions of him are immortal and thus there is a chance after 2000 years the dude would still be around it's hard to say with any certainty that wars would break out over him or cults would form.

Of course either way he's still technically accomplished way more then Jesus ever has, but then Supes appears in new stories constantly.. whereas Jesus just appears in the same ones so it's hardly a knock on Jesus.

[adkal]

Just out of curiosity, how do you come away with a reading of Christianity that paints Jesus as a 'warmonger'?

We are talking about the man who's said to have healed the high priest's servant's ear when the Roman and temple guard came to arrest him, and chastised his own disciple for cutting it off in the first place.

The same one who said, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?

The same who also said:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."

Matt 10:34-36

[jarvisjackrabbit]

All she did was look back at the place where she used to live. Hardly a capital offence.


No. Creating life does not give you the right to end it - unless you think parents should be allowed to kill their children.


Yup - requiring/allowing his son to die is another crime in God's long list.


I'm really interested to see how thousands of people being killed by a Tsunami is people exercising their free will.


So "do as I say or I'll kill you all". That's Darkseid's style of 'free will'.


Let's go with the whole concept that Adam actually had committed some hypothetical sin that needed to be atoned for... Why exactly was anyone other than Adam himself required to atone for it? I certainly wouldn't want to be punished for any crime my dad committed.


Having the power does not give you the right.


Sorry - I'm not seeing anything benevolent about God. If he's omnipotent then he could have done something about the malevolent force - not doing so is negligent or sadistic.

God does not operate according to the flawed sense of entitlement and holding of "fairness" as the paramount virtue that has warped the thinking of western society. It has become difficult for people to believe in the love of God and Jesus Christ because we think we should be able to make the rules. We have become unable to understand the meaning or worth of humility. God is omnipotent and therefore defines what is good, just, and evil, and I am thankful for that because I definitely am not able to rely on my own sensibilities to define them. Christ has conquered death for humanity, but you choose to refuse it because it is not on your terms? It is difficult and joyous to live as a Christian. It requires acting against base urges instead of celebrating them much of the time, but it is indescribably fulfilling to accept the love and grace of God instead of one's own desires.

[Stantheman23]

Actually one of the reasons I like Superman is because he's like Jesus.

[David Walton]

The same who also said:



Matt 10:34-36

You're abusing the context.

In the passage you've quoted, Jesus is speaking of the violence (both metaphorical and literal) that his followers will suffer for the gospel. They will be kicked out of the synagogue, cut off from their familes, and brought before judges with the power to torture and kill them. It's not altogether different than Martin Luther King Jr.'s warning to anyone who wanted to march with him about the mistreatment they'd suffer. He's saying, "If you want to follow me, you'd better be ready to deal with violence without resorting to it."

[adkal]

You're abusing the context.

No, I'm not. I'm merely not accepting what I (and you) have been told to accept. There's a reason why he told his disciples to arm themselves with swords and you need to take into consideration what the aims of various groups at the time was. THAT is the context - you have to look outside the text itself.

[Castel]

The same who also said:



Matt 10:34-36

The sword he is referring to is the new faith. It's not meant to be taken literally.

And that's what happened, Jews were of course extremely divided about the whole Jesus question.

[David Walton]

No, I'm not. I'm merely not accepting what I (and you) have been told to accept. There's a reason why he told his disciples to arm themselves with swords and you need to take into consideration what the aims of various groups at the time was. THAT is the context - you have to look outside the text itself.

Jesus explicitly condemns Peter's act of violence on his behalf and tells his followers his kingdom isn't of this world and thus shouldn't be defended through worldly means.

When Jesus is confronted by the temple and Roman guard, he shames them by saying he spoke openly in the synagogue and wasn't leading a rebellion.

You'd have to go pretty far outside the text to assume he was training an army.

[adkal]

Jesus explicitly condemns Peter's act of violence on his behalf and tells his followers his kingdom isn't of this world and thus shouldn't be defended through worldly means.

When Jesus is confronted by the temple and Roman guard, he shames them by saying he spoke openly in the synagogue and wasn't leading a rebellion.

You'd have to go pretty far outside the text to assume he was training an army.

Because it was not yet time for such action to take place - of that, he's also very explicit.


Are you aware of what was happening at that time? Not 'this is what my pastor told me' (because 'mine' told me a lot of things) but 'this is what I found through reading the work of historians'.

[adkal]

The sword he is referring to is the new faith. It's not meant to be taken literally.

The sword is literal, too, which is why he advised them to start arming themselves whereas previously he had warned them against doing so.

And that's what happened, Jews were of course extremely divided about the whole Jesus question.[/QUOTE]

The division that existed was 'is this the Messiah', because they were, at the time, waiting for two - and the one they wanted was the warrior, not the spiritual. They specifically asked him 'are you that prophet' (the one they were expecting) and he said 'no' (John 1:21).

[David Walton]

Because it was not yet time for such action to take place - of that, he's also very explicit.


Are you aware of what was happening at that time? Not 'this is what my pastor told me' (because 'mine' told me a lot of things) but 'this is what I found through reading the work of historians'.

We're talking about the bibilical text, in which Jesus repeatedly condemns violence on his behalf, and squashes the disciples hopes of a rebellion one last time after his Resurrection.

The early Christians were pacifists.

[adkal]

We're talking about the bibilical text, in which Jesus repeatedly condemns violence on his behalf, and squashes the disciples hopes of a rebellion one last time after his Resurrection.

The early Christians were pacifists.

The early Christians were also expecting his imminent return, which was retconned as time passed by.

Further, Jesus conducted an act of violence in the Temple itself...