tell me what does this passage mean from jesus
JEsus said, " the seed will be thrown, some will land in plain ground but will not grow, some will land to the open field where it will be eaten by the crow, some will land in the field and grow, but will be choke to death by the vines surrounded him, for those who does survive they will grow and bear fruit"
Tell me smartazz chrisitians and ateist, what does being choke by the majority means?
I would just like to go on the record to say that:
You are a fucking idiot.
With love,
-Thirst
four types of seeds:
–The seeds that land on plain ground and do not grow.
–The seeds that land in the fields and are eaten by crows.
–The seeds that grow but are choked off by vines.
–The seeds that grow and bear fruit.
the first type of seed represents those who are born into this world and never do anything to help anyone but themselves. many people would respond to this by saying that everyone at some point in their lives does some good for someone else, and that may be true. but they do not spread the word of christianity and they do not do good works for God, but they do it for themselves.
the second type of seed represents those who start out neutral, so to speak, but become like the first type of seed because they are corrupted by them. they are of no more use than the first kind, because neither grows or bears fruit.
the seeds that grow and are choked by the vines are the people who start out as christians but are then corrupted. they have fallen farther than the second type of seed, who never grew in the first place. sometimes they still believe themselves to be christians and will call themselves by that name, but they are not true christians in the sense that they do not spread God’s name or his love.
the fourth type is the seed who grows, bears fruit, and is good in the eyes of God. they start out as christians and stay christians, and “bear fruit” by witnessing to others.
is that a fairly detailed explanation?
dan020350, with the hope that you’ve got a follow-up question to specify which issue of the subject you want answered, I think being choked by the majority is effectively when a person puts the ideas of other people above his/her own self, for whatever reason. In this case, the “seed” has Christian ideas/feelings/inclinations, but, because of the influence of peers or the people who are otherwise in proximity, their faith falters. This influence can be in the form of fear–threat of persecution, for example–or simply nudging the person to think in a manner that isn’t true to their original beliefs.
Dan. The passage doesnt mean anything. it was made up by some follower of a con man .
what did I say about opinions? care to back that up? otherwise, not needed thanks. he didn’t ask if it was reliable or not. sheesh. atheists may as well be called anti-Christians.
A bit hasty. 
Because we are often haters of Islam and Judaic religions as well.
10/10 on the excessive sarcasm scale here
sorry - I’m just speaking from experience with the many atheists I’ve come across - all they ever talk about is Bible this, Jesus that. apparently they have no problem with Hindus, Confucians, Buddhists, etc.
and you have to admit, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are more similar to each other than to, say, the other ones. but whatever. sorry for the blatant sarcasm.
he said nothing wrong as far as being off point or off topic.
ever thought why most athiests talk about bible and jesus omg, its not like isnt a small religeon now is it. they are always hounded by christianity not so much by other religeons.
He was talking about preaching.
In some cases, the [Xian] “truth” will not be accepted by those who it is preached to, and in other cases, it will be accepted.
Those who do accept the preaching will preach also. “Bear fruit”, as it were.
During the oust of tax-collectors and murchants in the temples, Jesus showed a contempt towards religious “con-men”.
The “con” of christendom – lays in the dogmatic application. The bible, in and of itself, is harmless, but its fame and its indoctrination leaves it in a state of potentially exploitive means.
the way you quoted bro, it felt like I am choke by all these member’s gayass opinions, that they are no more truthful then you are. At this moment.
actually, if you must know, atheists were the ones who attacked us first. we had established that there was a God, and that Jesus was the Son of God, and atheists came along and said “nope! don’t think so”. sure, the Catholic Church has been extremely like that, but I’m not Catholic am I? we don’t work that way. and yeah like Buddhism isn’t big. go figure.
You know, this is just what I am talking about with many atheists on the Religion board. They give the rest of us a bad name.
I say this not because I am some kind of “warmer, gentler” atheist. But because there is a difference bewteen analysing a world-view itself and mistaking that worldview for certain social ramifications of it.
What I mean is this - I view religion, in the main, as a mistaken worldview, as I view rationalism, for instance. But any choking being done by any majority is a social, or (broadly speaking) political issue. A moral issue, if you prefer. It is not “epistemological”.
I am, in part, commenting on that farcical “Religious hate” thread as well. Tolerance is not a religious issue, but a political one, as presented there. Of course, it is nonsense to suppose that any religion should be “tolerant” - at least any religion that has a concept of sin, for instance - for sin is, by definition, not “tolerable”. Atheists who make this conceptual error, of confusing the religious with the political, are not merely atheists. The prefix “a-” is not an abbreviation for “anti”; it merely means “without” or “absense of”.
There is a difference between doing (philosophical) violence to religion (which I am all for) and doing violence (even rhetorically) to the religious. For Pete’s sake.
You will notice that creation imperfect’s treatment here is wholly within the context of Christianity. It just doesn’t make sense from outside that context. Attacking a thesis like this from without is entirely “political” and does not constitute a philosophical argument at all. It seems to me that the least an atheist who posts on this board can do is to stick to the topic. There is a Social Sciences board on this site.
If there is one flaw to ILP it is that atheists are allowed to make political attacks on the Religion board. It’s just not topic-related.
Okay. Maybe this post belongs in Rant.
No it fits perfectly in here as something everyone needs to hear. Thanks Faust.
It sounds like you became slightly insecure after Thirst4Metal insulted you, and the defensive feelings which may have arisin – may be reducing your mental capacity a little bit farther. Besides this, it looks like you are having a hard time keeping up with & deeling with all of these opinions which people have.
If you find it mentally tiering, go for a walk outside, relax, don’t treat anything or take anything personally, and take your time in thinking about each idea.
No sweat?
I’m obviously atheist, but I like this quote from Jesus. What he meant, or rather what I got from it, is that the seeds, being children, will be raised like a seed does. Some will not grow, some will turn to the dark side [size=75]“some will land to the open field where it will be eaten by the crow”[/size]. Open field means non-christian surroundings.
He brought up free will, which surprises me. He doesn’t blame the person growing up to be “evil”, be blames the “open field” where they are raised the wrong way.
+1 for Jesus in my book. Even though I don’t agree with it, it shows the man had some philosophical thought.
hey Duder, can I quote you on that? not that anyone is keeping score, it’s just this is a rare occurrence.
Go ahead. This proves jesus wasn’t a christian.
By the logic of that quote Jesus Didn’t believe in good or evil. He believes that people become who their surroundings shape them up to be. They have no choice.
Jesus a hard determinist?
It seems to me that the theists are equally allowed to make political/sociological arguments. In fact, in one of the Gospels Jesus talks heavily about wealth, poverty, charity and their direct correlation to an eternal afterlife. While I too would rather religion and politics be distinctly separated into dogma and social effects, that isn’t the case in the world today.
Duder, that doesn’t necessarily mean there is no good and evil; it only really does if you believe good and evil require a metaphysically isolated will that dictates human action, which seems incoherent anyway. How can we have an isolated, free will, and still respond to events?
um…no. actually He was talking about the kind of audience the word would fall on - deaf ears, like the hard rock; someone who is 1% Christian, like the thorns and path (path is just weak Christian - open to any of the devil’s snares, thorns are too much involvement with the world, and the Christian idea is forgotten and smothered); or the fertile soil, like an open heart and mind.
also, you’re taking the quote out of the context of many other references that talk about good/evil.