Why Jesus is valued and Bieber is scorned

I read the following blog post just now, a post questioning the meaning of life:

I decided to try my hand at offering an answer to that question:

  • Life’s purpose is to be a part of this species known as humans and to do your best in helping our species survive and thrive.  How you choose to do that is up to you, and if you attempt to put yourself alone too far ahead of the rest of the species, you will begin to fall out of favour with the species and will end up digging yourself into a hole.  If you dedicate your life to valuing and helping other members of the species, you will be uplifted!

Now first off, I am a bit shocked at my clarity in responding to one of the biggest questions we are all faced with.  I just had a little belief that I could write a decent response, and somehow I managed to impress myself with what came out.  Some might consider it divine inspiration.  I consider it the amazing ability our brains have of connecting the dots through unconscious thought.

But looking at it logically, Jesus put our species first and has amassed a 2000 year old following from his humanitarian-minded actions.  Justin Bieber, on the other hand, seems to be focused quite strongly on selfish personal enjoyment these days, even putting others at risk, and looking the other way when it comes to taking responsibility for his actions.  Needless to say, he is not held very high in public opinion these days.

Go ahead, take this logic for a test run with using any person as an example, see if it checks out!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Perspective and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Why Jesus is valued and Bieber is scorned

  1. nikeyo says:

    Loving the discussion on this. It definitely seems to be a group project. I’ve seen many quotes personalizing and individualizing life’s meaning, but you have instead gave a meaning that is species revolved. That opens the discussion up! Whereas “the meaning of life is to find life’s meaning” and other such answers close it into a personal, inward reflection.

    I love it.

  2. violetwisp says:

    “Life’s purpose is to be a part of this species known as humans and to do your best in helping our species survive and thrive. ” I want to agree with you but I can’t see life as only about our species. Every dog, pig, ant and tree has as much right to its existence. Surely it’s just about experiencing what we’ll never fully understand and helping everything around us to have a positive experience as much as we can.

    • jasonjshaw says:

      Absolutely, every living thing has a right to its existence and each is doing everything in its power to survive and thrive just as we are. The difference for us is that we have a growing awareness of our reliance on other living things and have affected many to the point where we need to help take better care of them in order for us to continue to survive and thrive.

      • violetwisp says:

        Really? You think life on this planet is all about humans? I think that’s kind of sad. My appreciation and love of dogs or trees isn’t related to how they help me survive.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        I would suggest that maybe it is related, as everything is connected. The ability to share in and better understand our connections with other living things may be enjoyable to us because it suits our survival well to nurture those connections.

  3. Arkenaten says:

    Crap, Jason, and o,h so simplistic. This could be a script for a Disney movie.
    JC was an eschatological, itinerant preacher who was convinced the world as he knew it was about to come to an end, and this was the initial message preached by him and his followers.
    He was a misguided fool. A dickhead that got himself crucified through absolute stupidity.

    The more you write on this subject the more you come across as somewhat delusional, someone who cherry picks the bible to find the pat verses and lines to fit in with your rose tinted worldview.

    Really, the analogy in this post is very poor.
    And it was ”Paul”” that established Christianity, not Jesus, and not;s about time the world woke up to this. And that includes you.

    Consider that the Jesus seminar – a serious group of top notch scholars – reckon that around 80% of what was claimed to have been said by Jesus was in fact not

    • jasonjshaw says:

      Ark, I totally get where you’re coming from and how you can see my writings in that way as I am writing from a specific perspective. And of course, you are working from the perspective that it is essentially all fiction, so anyone not working from your viewpoint will appear delusional to you. Viewing others as delusional is not a good first step in connecting them to new understandings in a thoughtful manner though – it actually seems a bit similar to the way many Christians try to bring others on board, by thinking and expressing that people are troubled for not accepting Jesus and being saved.

      How is this theory crap though? You go on about what you believe Jesus actually was when the connection in this theory is to the Biblical account of Jesus and his humanitarian actions. That is what I am working from in this case.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Humanitarian actions?
        Such as? Hygiene? Medicine, education, reading,

        His ”mission” was solely for the Jews. To bring them back into the fold and to help correct their supposed wayward ways.

        If up to 80% of what he is claimed to have said is rubbish,how can you know his purpose was humanitarian?

        I reiterate, the Christian doctrine you are familiar with is Pauline.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        I’m basing it on what is written, not what is suggested to be true. Jesus performed healings and ridding demons from people. He also is suggested to have died for humanity’s sins – and it is believed by many which contributes to the (overly) high regard people hold him to. I’m pretty sure you are aware of this. These are humanitarian actions that are written, this is why Jesus is held to high regard – regardless of the actual truth of it.

      • Arkenaten says:

        What’s humanitarian about being crucified for someone else’s sins?
        This is merely a continuation of the barbaric practice of human sacrifice.Blood needed to be spilled to appease the boogie man in the sky to make the crops grow and the volcano not to blow and women fall pregnant.
        Justin Beiber is at east showing people that anyone with a bit of work can be successful. He is no different to the Beatles, Stones, Sinatra or even Paganini in this regard.
        Or maybe you prefer Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?

        The biblical character of Jesus was an idiot and everything he was, was moulded by the church for political reasons.
        Drive out demons! For god’s sake.
        Like the pigs, for example?

        He is held in high regard because the church manipulated the story for over 2000 years, putting people down and keeping them down based on a doctrine of lies, based on fear.

        You think this is commendable?

        Time for a wake up call, Jason.

        if the church ever tells the truth then you will see a different story.
        And if you want to know the truth ask a deconvertee.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Ark, you’re totally missing the point. This is about what it in the story. Period. Would you be arguing in the same way if I used an example from a known fictional story, say Star Wars? Even fictional characters are viewed in the same way as what I am describing. Turn your anti-theist evangelical switch off and try again.

      • Arkenaten says:

        No,Jason, I am not missing the point at all.
        You have become befuddled in your attempt to find a middle ground between the Mythers and the proponents of the Meek & Mild blue eyed god-man pushed by the church.
        The problem with walking on the white line, Jason, is you are likely to hit by traffic coming from both directions.

        There is nothing Jesus did that could be considered genuinely humane as his goal was flawed, thus his motivation corrupt.
        There was nothing altruistic in what he did. Nothing at all.

        And if you consider he was only a narrative construct…then have the balls to say so, and then we can analyse his actions from this perspective.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        Connecting with the outcasts of society is not humane? What do you suggest should be done with the outcasts of society then that would be?

        Again, I am not concerned with whether he is a narrative construct of not in this example.

        How about we look at Superman instead then? He went to the effort of saving people who were in trouble, and is seen as a hero because of it. Can you understand the theory with this example?

      • Arkenaten says:

        Superman would be a much better alternative.
        But to worship him would be seen as blasphemous.
        Yet, fortunately no-one is ever likely to be burned at the stake for any wrong kind of worship of Superman.

        He engaged with the outcasts of society.
        Great. So did Mother Theresa. And by now, we all should know how that story is not quite as rosy and nice thought and how it all went pear-shaped

        Did he in any way alleviate poverty, start a literacy program, or even dish out bars of soap or words of wisdom re health?
        Er….
        What did he actually do that was truly beneficial?

        You are effectively peeing in the wind with this line , Jason; and painting yourself into a corner, my friend.

        Jesus was an ineffectual wimp.
        If he could cure one person’s deafness why not the whole world?
        If he alleviated blindness in one individual why stop there?
        If he truly had a “message of Salvation” ) salvation from what, of course?) why restrict his tenure to between one and three years hawking his nonsense around a dirt poor smelly little outback of the Roman Empire?

        The image created around him was via ”Paul” and the Catholic Church.
        Period.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        … and the image that you suggest Paul created is what I am working from in this example.

        Seriously Ark, you seem to want to end Christianity, yet you attack those who are attempting to provide initial steps in understanding non-religious concepts. Chialphagirl was bringing some great connections to realistic ideas through use of the Bible, and I bet she would have helped loosen the grip of many who are caught in more ignorant segments of Christianity – but you pretty much single-handedly put an end to that. Now you’re attacking my attempts to bring connection to realistically understanding morality from a point of view involving Christianity.

        You have to carefully take a couple of steps before you can learn to walk – you seem to be wanting Christians to climb a mountain before they even take a step. I just don’t see how your approach is helping the cause.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Okay, lets; clarify a few things.
        If you think pussy footing around such issues will ever lead the religious to ditch their faith you are sadly mistaken.
        Some of your posts are ambiguous to the point of confusing.
        Consider a person like Derek.
        Do you honestly think he will reconsider his standpoint based on what is written here?
        I am sorry to say, you show a marked lack of scholarly approach to what you write on such topics.
        Chiaalphagirl was never intent on ditching her religion, and support of it, no matter how tacit,
        is condemning millions.

        Christianity ( as all religion) is crap. A load of hogwash dumped on humanity by one of the most corrupt organisations ever to walk the planet.

        If your posts were driving toward its dissolution I would be fully on board. Maybe if you stated publicly what exactly is your ‘goal’ toward religion and the motivation for your religious posts then I would be able to adjust my responses accordingly.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        If you think bullying people around to push your views upon them is going to bring conversion, you are sadly mistaken. Who would want to associate themselves with someone who seems to only care about being critical of others who don’t share his view? Your approach is even increasing my empathy for the religious.

        Keep in mind you are talking with someone who went into learning about Christianity not believing it, and never believing that the story is absolute truth, but who benefit from the perspective and the ideas, the community, and the concepts that were presented within the teachings viewed in a reality-connected metaphorical way. Yes, I can agree that the belief in the supernatural is, as you say, “crap”, but just because one aspect is a problem doesn’t mean that the whole thing is garbage.

        When your house’s furnace outlasts its usefulness, you don’t trash your house. You find yourself a new, more up-to-date furnace.

        All you are doing is pushing a hateful agenda aimed at the religious. You’re adding fuel to their fire rather than offering them water to quench the thirst of their ignorance of reality.

        Who cares if chialphagirl wasn’t intent on ditching her faith – could you blame her? She was surrounded by it! Her life would go to hell in a hand basket if she up and left. Have a little heart! She was at least bringing up points to allow Christians to begin questioning their faith, and isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that how your friends who were formerly Christians began their journey to leave the faith, by coming across points that were questionable? It seems like you’re believing in magic just as much as any Christian.

        You are confused by my posts because you take an all-or-nothing approach. You see things as black or white. You embody the exact same problems in your views on religion that I see in the more troublesome Christian views. You’re making it clear to me that either religion is not the problem, or that you have become indoctrinated by a set of beliefs yourself.

        Is that more clear for you?

      • Arkenaten says:

        No. You still have not laid out your case and this is disingenuous.

        but just because one aspect is a problem doesn’t mean that the whole thing is garbage.

        Wrong! It is ALL garbage because it is based on lies and the semi-respectability it adorns itself with has been bought at a huge price. And an avoidable one.
        Any form of tacit acceptance is giving licence for its continuation.
        You explain your, “It’s not all bad” attitude to a clerical child rape victim, or a kid that is terrorized with Hell.
        Imagine it was your kids

        You think that your softly, softly approach has made a single dent or crease on the POV of someone like Derek?
        Think again.

        This is not something you can ever win by playing middle of the road. There is no reason to faith.
        They might get angry at me…but they laugh at you.
        Go read the reaction that Nate Owen received from those closest to him when he dumped Christianity.
        A similar reaction to many deconvertees.
        They tell the person they were never really a proper Christian.

        Look at how intransigent Derek is to the evidence presented to his nonsensical polemic.
        ”I don’t agree…”
        And who are we to argue against Derek, right?
        No, we must disregard all the experts because they jar with Derek’s faith and the faith of all the other Derek’s out there.

        Sorry Jason, these twits go into the world and teach kids and influence world opinion and enter politics.

        There is no middle ground when these nonsensical views impact on society. and the real bullies are those that are abusing kids and creating another generation of indoctrinated god botherers.
        It has to stop.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        And as for Bieber – yes, that may have been the case at first, but street racing while high, and his other recent antics are what I am referencing. It’s probably more relevant to North Americans where the press feel the need to cover his every move.

    • Derek says:

      @Arkenaten
      I find it interesting that you are so convinced that Christ was Paul’s creation. Paul was a persecutor of the early church (at the stoning of Stephen Paul was there giving his approval) and was therefore not in a place to recast Christ as something different. I’ve heard some interesting arguments about Christianity, but the Pauline theory seems to be one of the weakest.

      • Arkenaten says:

        I dd not say Jesus was Paul’s creation. I did not even imply it.
        Did not you pass basic comprehension skills at your school?

        Go read the comment properly and when you have understood it then we can have a grown up conversation.

  4. Derek says:

    “The image created around him was via ”Paul” and the Catholic Church.” I think it’s more of a semantic issue that upset you, but this is the quote I’m talking about.

    • Arkenaten says:

      No semantics, I know exactly what I meant.
      Jesus was for the Jews. Christianity as you understand it is mostly based on Paul’s doctrine

      • Derek says:

        Here is what I meant when I said semantics. You said: “I did not say Jesus was Paul’s creation.” I then quoted your previous post in which you said: “The image created around him was via ‘Paul’ and the Catholic Church.” The meaning of the word “created” is what we disagreed on. What I think you meant was this: Christ was not a fabrication of Paul’s but Christ was instead embellished or spun by Paul. Is this what you mean?

        You say you know exactly what you meant–a fact I don’t doubt. I am very interested in hearing what you have to say, so clarity becomes important for me.

        Paul was a Jew. He knew the OT very well. If Jesus was only for the Jews, why would he say he was for the gentiles, and not just the Jews?

      • Arkenaten says:

        The majority of what Jesus is claimed to have said as per the bible, he did not.
        As a Christian, probably well versed in the historicity of Yahweh, you will no doubt be aware of this?
        I sincerely hopes at any rate.

        Jesus came to fulfill the Law. The Law of Moses. He came for the lost sheep of Israel.
        He was an eschatological preacher who considered the end was nigh.

        The suggestion that he was for all people is usually deduced from certain verses, the Canaanite woman is the usual first port of call and the crap that he ‘died for all ”our sins’ is also thrown into the mix by Christians who feel hard done by hen its pointed out that their man god really was Jew and that’s the bottom line.

        Christianity as you know it; Its major tenets and doctrine are Pauline and/or church influenced.

  5. Derek says:

    I don’t understand your argument at all.

    “The majority of what Jesus is claimed to have said as per the bible, he did not.”
    What is your proof for this point? Please don’t tell me your hermeneutics are as philosophically convenient and narrow as Jason’s.

    “Jesus came to fulfill the Law. The Law of Moses. He came for the lost sheep of Israel.
    He was an eschatological preacher who considered the end was nigh.”

    I don’t disagree with any of this, but I’ll point out that none of this supports the point that Jesus was only for the Jews. Even the OT points to the eventual inclusion of all nations. Isaiah tells us that God’s house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.

    “The suggestion that he was for all people is usually deduced from certain verses, the Canaanite woman is the usual first port of call and the crap that he ‘died for all ”our sins’ is also thrown into the mix by Christians who feel hard done by hen its pointed out that their man god really was Jew and that’s the bottom line”

    Yes, when Jesus himself says that he is here for the gentiles. Your argument here is not convincing unless we go back to your baseless claim that Jesus simply never said that. How convenient!

    Christianity as I know it, is based on the entire Bible. That’s why I read the entire Bible. As you aptly pointed out Jesus did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it.

  6. Arkenaten says:

    The evidence regarding authentic sayings and acts were deduced by the Jesus Seminar.
    You can follow thus up idf you are so inclined.
    You can also read up on Raymond E Brown.

    Even the OT points to the eventual inclusion of all nations. Isaiah tells us that God’s house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.

    Isaiah also explains the true meaning of the supposed Messiah Prophecy that the write of Mathew ripped off and concluded erroneously that this was the ‘proof’ that Jesus was ‘IT’
    So, which corruption/ misinterpretation would you like to reference?

    Yes, when Jesus himself says that he is here for the gentiles.

    Really? Then maybe I have missed this? Please supply the actual words spoken by Jesus and the Gospel and verse they are from.
    Meantime you will be familiar with these ”sayings”, I am sure, yes?
    ”Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5,6)

    “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

    Seems if he was for the gentiles then he was one heck of a confused man god.

    Christianity as I know it, is based on the entire Bible. That’s why I read the entire Bible. As you aptly pointed out Jesus did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it.

    Which is why it is idiotic as Moses was a fictitious character and thus , his ”Law” is also nothing but fiction; a tradition woven into Jewish culture.
    And if you have not only read but studied the text, even in plain simple English, you will have realised this.

    That the biblical character, Jesus references Moses, Abraham and this “Law’ is indictment enough to clearly show that if he – the character in the bible – existed he was either ignorant of Jewish history ( unlikely if he was the ‘god’ he is claimed to be) or he was a fraud.

    As the Pentateuch has been established to be fiction by all the world’s leading biblical scholars including Orthodox Jewish Rabbis like Norman Solomon.
    In his 2012 book, Torah from Heaven: The Reconstruction of Faith, he states Moses and the Exodus narrative was not rooted in reality but was rather a “foundation myth;” an origin dream, not a descriptive historical fact.

    • Derek says:

      “The evidence regarding authentic sayings and acts were deduced by the Jesus Seminar.
      You can follow thus up if you are so inclined. You can also read up on Raymond E Brown.”

      I love reading about this kind of thing, but to be honest most people have obviously flawed arguments based on faulty assumptions. I’m not surprised a group of people doesn’t believe the Bible is accurate, but I’m also not convinced just because they don’t believe it.

      “Isaiah also explains the true meaning of the supposed Messiah Prophecy that the write of Mathew ripped off and concluded erroneously that this was the ‘proof’ that Jesus was ‘IT’ So, which corruption/ misinterpretation would you like to reference?”

      Any would be better than none.

      “Seems if he was for the gentiles then he was one heck of a confused man god.”

      In John 4:26 Jesus explains salvation to a Samaritan woman. In your example, that you quote, in the next few lines, Jesus heals the woman’s daughter. I don’t see much evidence that Jesus was exclusively for the Jews, though I would agree that he prioritized the Jews because they were the ones who had passed on the OT with prophecies about Christ.

      “As the Pentateuch has been established to be fiction by all the world’s leading biblical scholars including Orthodox Jewish Rabbis like Norman Solomon.”

      That’s nice that they think that, but I don’t agree, or find their opinion inherently convincing. I am far more interested in how they arrived at this conclusion.

      • Arkenaten says:

        Raymond Brown was a world renowned Catholic theologian.
        Why would his argument be flawed while yours would not?
        Offered a choice which would be the logical one to go with? Er…..

        Why would you, an indoctrinated Christian with apparent fundamentalist leanings give any credence to a Rabbi who is an expert in Jewish history or every other Rabbi tat agrees with his argument and who are also experts in the hermeneutics and exegeses of the Old Testament or Israeli archaeologists who have dedicated their lives to uncovering the secrets of the Sinai?

        No, let’s go with the Christian fundamentalist’s opinion. That seems like the really sensible thing to do.
        Jesus H…no wonder there are 30,000 plus idiotic christian sects.

      • Derek says:

        This is a logical fallacy. It’s called appeal to authority. While I see your angle (how could a lowly Christian be correct when going against such intellectual giants) it’s not proof or even reason of any kind. I am excited to read Raymond Brown, so I can talk with you more about his theories. As far as your experts in hermeneutics, you’ll have to present their arguments before I can really disagree or agree with them. You’ve only advertized their claims, but you’ve yet to contribute their actual arguments. Of course I’m not going to find the claims alone convincing.

  7. Derek says:

    I like your one at a time style, so I’m going to copy it. I’ll discuss the three questions on the list in the order they appear starting with the first one.

    (1) The Gospels teach that Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. We are unclear, however, whether those appearances took place in Jerusalem or in the Galilee (or at both locales). According to our reading, the Galilean accounts seem to rule out prior Jerusalem appearances. Where did Jesus actually appear? If he appeared in Jerusalem, how should we read the Galilean accounts?

    I will simply state that gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection are different in the sense they are from different perspectives, but they are not contradictions of one another. In fact, I would go as far to say that their unique perspectives, but ultimate cohesion lends them further credibility. I generally agree with the authors perspective whose hyperlink I’ve copied below, but I’ve read and I have heard other ideas regarding resurrection in the gospel that I find equally plausible.

    http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/resurrection_of_jesus.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s