clapstyx Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 It seems like for 2000 years there hasnt been a discussion as to whether it was a sensible thing to do. I personally think it was stupid for two main reasons. Firstly if there is someone in the world that has a genuine to the intention of aiding the propellancy of increasing the frequency of coming up with ways everyday of saving mankind and raising the equivalency it seems more logical that one would support them to the maximum potentiality of the imagination. Secondly it was less than brilliantly intelligent to the extreme because it discouraged people from pursuing to surpass the scale of the legend when in fact there is greater sense in the contrary and its set us back because we didnt take our thinking to another level on the issue and we maintained negativity towards those with that scale of personal challenge to meet. We spent 2000 years not being positive to the odea of the planet being oxygen positive and we spent 2000 years not being positive to the idea of coming up with a collective strategy to achieve immortality as the thresh-hold of survival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Yah, heck, JFK! Totally backfired whether it was Castro, the Mafia or some whack-job failed Commie wanna-be. Making martyrs is a really stupid move in general. I cannot tell you how glad I am that Sarah Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromme failed! I thought I saw him walkin' up over the hill, :eek2:Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemit Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 If you take the story of the New Testament as a whole, the crucifiction was necessary. Jesus knew he would be betrayed. He knew he would be crucified. He knew he'd be back after three days. He'd seen the script. I find it fascinating that Christians despise Judas and Pontius Pilate. What would Christianity be without them? A minor, probably unsuccessful branch of Judaism? Jesus could be such a jerk sometimes, it's kind of difficult to believe he'd have had many followers without that very dramatic endgame. That story is a wonderful example of Literary Naturalism. It would have been very stupid for the Romans to have tried to fight against God's Will. They didn't know what they were doing, but the Trinity sure did. The thing about the Bible is that even if you don't believe it, it's still one, uh, well, you know, Hell(?) of a story. Talk about your triumphing over adversity! It is so dramatic that it provides great archetypes for literature and philosophy. It can be a fun read if you don't take it too seriously. I mean it isn't like it's written in stone or something. Hold on. I'm being told parts of it were written in stone. Huh! That's a real revelation. What? That's biblical too?:rolleyes: Jeez! Oh, that too?:eek2: It seems you can't say anything without being subject to some kind of Spanish Inquisition!:evil: Oh, no!:eek: --lemit(Now with Rack-and-Thumbscrew Steering):cheer: freeztar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larv Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Yes, it was stupid to crucify Jesus. He should have been hanged instead. Then all his followers would be wearing nooses around their necks instead of crosses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Now that was funny Larv.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.