Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

I have been asked to do an O P showing my beliefs and have written a nutshell view to fill that request.

I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.

This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it.

This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

The Jesus I know wears a tuxedo and plays bass guitar.

I think it wiser to be a pagan rather than any sort of Christian. The more gods the merrier!

[Gnostic Bishop]

The Jesus I know wears a tuxedo and plays bass guitar.

I think it wiser to be a pagan rather than any sort of Christian. The more gods the merrier!

Close to Gnostic Christian thinking that.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Jesus wants many Gods.

Regards
DL

[Lokasenna]

I don't wish to be pedantic... oh who am I kidding, I LOVE to be pedantic! If you've been through an apotheosis, then you ARE god. I'm just sayin'. I think the word you are hunting for is 'revelation'.

I'm not much of a fan of Jesus. Whenever I start banging on about how bloody awful Yahweh is in the Bible, Christian friends remind me that Jesus was a lot better. Well, yes, but 'better' is a relative term. I reread quite a bit of the New Testament recently, for the first time in quite a few years, and I realised I don't much care for Jesus either.

Some random thoughts on Jesus in the NT that occur to me (in no particular order):

1. Jesus was a hell of a lot angrier than I remember. Everyone knows the money-lenders-in-the-temple story, but he spends quite a lot of time stamping around the Holy Land being nasty to lots of harmless people.

2. He frequently berates his followers for not understanding his parables - so why the heck does he teach things in parables?

3. On the subject of parables, quite a few of them make no sense whatsoever.

4. Jesus is pretty happy with the concept of slavery - in fact, one of his horrible parables (in Luke if I remember right) was all about how God's relationship with humanity was like a master-and-slave.

5. He's also pretty anti-family. He treats his mother appalingly, and encourages his followers to abandon their families - kind of like cults do, ya know?

6. He's rather keen on warfare - there are several times when he calls for the arming of his followers, and for the putting to death of anyone who doesn't follow him.

7. He condemns a fig-tree to death for not bearing him any fruit to eat. Are these the actions of a well man?

8. He went through the worst torment imaginable? Well, crucifixion is pretty nasty - but at least it's over in a couple of days! I've watched people die much more horrible deaths.

9. On the subject of the crucifixion, the main question is 'WHY?' Why did God need to sacrifice himself to himself? At least when Odin did it in Norse myth, he was sacrificing himself for knowledge.

10. Jesus says time and again that some of the people he is directly speaking to will live to see the End of Days. I note we are still waiting.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Locasenna

Nice work. I have no argument. Christians will likely just say that you read out of context but no one of intelligence will.

Have you heard this gent. Not all his points are super valid but most are. I am disappointed he did not speak of Jesus' view of divorce because that no divorce policy for women is completely anti-love and immoral.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[Cleanthes]

Now, now, let's put ourselves on Jesus' sandals for a moment here. You're the creator god of the universe, an angry, jealous and murderous god, and you end up incarnated in first Century Palestine, a place with no toilet paper, no Internet and no Taco Bell's Doritos Fiery Tacos Locos™: of course you're going to be quick with the rebukes, generous with the dressing downs and find everyone stupid who doesn't get your meaning: why should you make yourself any clearer, you're god!

As for the threats of eternal damnation, Jesus was just performing a public service by warning us, he's the one who's going to be doing all the judging, after all. Also, this thing about waiting for him to come back, haven't you heard the good news? He already did, just two days after he died, he came back to life, at least according to the visions Peter, Paul and Mary (Magdalene) claimed to have had. He's with us until the end of the world, and you can see him whenever two or more gather in his name (what? You don't see him? You must not be gathering in his name, then).

[Gnostic Bishop]

Now, now, let's put ourselves on Jesus' sandals for a moment here. You're the creator god of the universe, an angry, jealous and murderous god, and you end up incarnated in first Century Palestine, a place with no toilet paper, no Internet and no Taco Bell's Doritos Fiery Tacos Locos™: of course you're going to be quick with the rebukes, generous with the dressing downs and find everyone stupid who doesn't get your meaning: why should you make yourself any clearer, you're god!

As for the threats of eternal damnation, Jesus was just performing a public service by warning us, he's the one who's going to be doing all the judging, after all. Also, this thing about waiting for him to come back, haven't you heard the good news? He already did, just two days after he died, he came back to life, at least according to the visions Peter, Paul and Mary (Magdalene) claimed to have had. He's with us until the end of the world, and you can see him whenever two or more gather in his name (what? You don't see him? You must not be gathering in his name, then).

The thing is that as a part of the Trinity, he used genocide against mankind so if he ever pops up, if the Haig misses him I have a bullet with his name on it.

That is why I like the Jesus I know. I do not need to kill him but will kill the satanic Jesus when I can.

If you disagree, ----


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfResyFrqlM

Regards
DL

[YesNo]

The thing is that as a part of the Trinity, he used genocide against mankind so if he ever pops up, if the Haig misses him I have a bullet with his name on it.

That is why I like the Jesus I know. I do not need to kill him but will kill the satanic Jesus when I can.


This emphasis on killing reminds me more of atheism than theism.

The apotheosis concept also makes more sense as simple self-righteousness.

[mona amon]

I don't wish to be pedantic... oh who am I kidding, I LOVE to be pedantic! If you've been through an apotheosis, then you ARE god. I'm just sayin'. I think the word you are hunting for is 'revelation'.

I'm not much of a fan of Jesus. Whenever I start banging on about how bloody awful Yahweh is in the Bible, Christian friends remind me that Jesus was a lot better. Well, yes, but 'better' is a relative term. I reread quite a bit of the New Testament recently, for the first time in quite a few years, and I realised I don't much care for Jesus either.

Some random thoughts on Jesus in the NT that occur to me (in no particular order):

1. Jesus was a hell of a lot angrier than I remember. Everyone knows the money-lenders-in-the-temple story, but he spends quite a lot of time stamping around the Holy Land being nasty to lots of harmless people.

That's why I like him. While I don't remember him being "being nasty to lots of harmless people", I do agree with Bernard Shaw that "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild is a sniveling modern invention."


2. He frequently berates his followers for not understanding his parables - so why the heck does he teach things in parables?

Ha, that's true! :D


3. On the subject of parables, quite a few of them make no sense whatsoever.

Also true.


4. Jesus is pretty happy with the concept of slavery - in fact, one of his horrible parables (in Luke if I remember right) was all about how God's relationship with humanity was like a master-and-slave.

Is it Luke 12: 42-48 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12:42-48? There's really nothing in the Bible to suggest that that Jesus was either happy or unhappy with the concept of slavery, or any other human rights issue for that matter. Jesus was pretty much apolitical, teaching brotherhood, compassion and forgiveness. He deals with some theological issues, but generally steers clear of social and political controversy.


5. He's also pretty anti-family. He treats his mother appalingly, and encourages his followers to abandon their families - kind of like cults do, ya know?

6. He's rather keen on warfare - there are several times when he calls for the arming of his followers, and for the putting to death of anyone who doesn't follow him.

Oh I don't know - seems like too literal and extreme interpretations of certain verses. Quite against the spirit of what he was teaching. True he found family ties restrictive and was more for the 'larger family encompassing all mankind' sort of thing, but when did he treat his mother appallingly?


7. He condemns a fig-tree to death for not bearing him any fruit to eat. Are these the actions of a well man?

:Shrugs: It was only a fig tree after all. :)


8. He went through the worst torment imaginable? Well, crucifixion is pretty nasty - but at least it's over in a couple of days! I've watched people die much more horrible deaths.

It was over in a few hours actually (EDIT: six, to be precise. Gosh, all this time I thought it was three, which was bad enough), and yes, people die far more lingering deaths. What is your point?


9. On the subject of the crucifixion, the main question is 'WHY?' Why did God need to sacrifice himself to himself? At least when Odin did it in Norse myth, he was sacrificing himself for knowledge.

It is something to do with being the scapegoat for the sins of mankind. Dunno, it's a part of Christian theology I'm not particularly interested in.


10. Jesus says time and again that some of the people he is directly speaking to will live to see the End of Days. I note we are still waiting.

And he was totally wrong about that! I think it's high time the Christians who try to explain this away just accepted it and moved on, especially since there's really nothing at all hanging on the fulfillment of this prophecy.

[mal4mac]

The Not so Nice Jesus:

http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

On the specific point of being angry and being directly nasty to people (and animals):

Jesus looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He drowned innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)

Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)

No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.

"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves.

If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). "Behold, I come quickly." (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his "quick" return.

Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17).

He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21).

The "humble" Jesus said that he was "greater than the temple" (Matt 12:6), "greater than Jonah" (Matthew 12:41), and "greater than Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30).

[Iain Sparrow]

That's why I like him. While I don't remember him being "being nasty to lots of harmless people", I do agree with Bernard Shaw that "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild is a sniveling modern invention."



Ha, that's true! :D



Also true.



Is it Luke 12: 42-48 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12:42-48? There's really nothing in the Bible to suggest that that Jesus was either happy or unhappy with the concept of slavery, or any other human rights issue for that matter. Jesus was pretty much apolitical, teaching brotherhood, compassion and forgiveness. He deals with some theological issues, but generally steers clear of social and political controversy.



Oh I don't know - seems like too literal and extreme interpretations of certain verses. Quite against the spirit of what he was teaching. True he found family ties restrictive and was more for the 'larger family encompassing all mankind' sort of thing, but when did he treat his mother appallingly?



:Shrugs: It was only a fig tree after all. :)



It was over in a few hours actually (EDIT: six, to be precise. Gosh, all this time I thought it was three, which was bad enough), and yes, people die far more lingering deaths. What is your point?



It is something to do with being the scapegoat for the sins of mankind. Dunno, it's a part of Christian theology I'm not particularly interested in.



And he was totally wrong about that! I think it's high time the Christians who try to explain this away just accepted it and moved on, especially since there's really nothing at all hanging on the fulfillment of this prophecy.

uhm... if you yourself find so many fundamental flaws in Christian Scripture, why follow it? If the accounts of God and Jesus that are portrayed in various christian holy books are simply the writings of men, and most probably men with an agenda scattered over centuries, doesn't it render everything else into question?
I think the time has now arrived that you become an Atheist... you do know don't you, that when you become an atheist we send you a free t-shirt and coffee mug?;)

[Iain Sparrow]

8. He went through the worst torment imaginable? Well, crucifixion is pretty nasty - but at least it's over in a couple of days! I've watched people die much more horrible deaths.

9. On the subject of the crucifixion, the main question is 'WHY?' Why did God need to sacrifice himself to himself? At least when Odin did it in Norse myth, he was sacrificing himself for knowledge.

Yes, but what you've missed is that Jesus can at any time back away from the crucifixion. In fact that is Satan's last ditch effort in the affair, to tempt him from a selfless act to save mankind. That's the whole point, he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his own freewill. And yes, I am an atheist.:)

[Gnostic Bishop]

This emphasis on killing reminds me more of atheism than theism.

That is just me getting your attention.

Are you saying that decent moral people would embrace a God who is capable of genocide and has promised it again? Would Jews kiss Hitler on the lips?

Why not show the contempt that any moral man should show for such a prick.


The apotheosis concept also makes more sense as simple self-righteousness.

Yes. Gnosis does that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[YesNo]

That is just me getting your attention.

Are you saying that decent moral people would embrace a God who is capable of genocide and has promised it again? Would Jews kiss Hitler on the lips?

Why not show the contempt that any moral man should show for such a prick.

Here's my problem. I don't actually see you as a theist, but as an atheist who is focused on generating anti-Christian rhetoric and using your alleged apotheosis to claim a pseudo-theism.

As far as genocide goes, I consider atheists such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to be worse than anything Christians (or other legitimate theists) have come up with. So my contempt goes toward them.



Yes. Gnosis does that.


To make sure I understand, you are saying that "gnosis" generates self-righteousness. This makes sense since you are the God grounding your self-righteousness. However, because of the violence in your atheology, I reject this gnosis as delusional and claim it is just another form of self-righteous atheism.

[HCabret]

Agape!!!!! Please don't dissipate!

[desiresjab]

Labels are fine, and you have chosen one with attractive possibilities, which shows a clear similarity to agnostic Confucianism.

[mona amon]

The Not so Nice Jesus:

http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id12.html

On the specific point of being angry and being directly nasty to people (and animals):

Jesus looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5), and attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15). He drowned innocent animals (Matthew 8:32). He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28).

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him: "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)

Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)

No women were chosen as disciples or invited to the Last Supper.

"There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12) Some believers, including church father Origen, took this verse literally and castrated themselves.

If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).
Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

Jesus told his disciples that they would not die before his second coming: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). "Behold, I come quickly." (Revelation 3:11) It's been 2,000 years, and believers are still waiting for his "quick" return.

Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matthew 23:17).

He irrationally cursed a fig tree for being fruitless out of season (Matthew 21:18-19, and Mark 11:13-14). He broke the law by stealing corn on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23), and he encouraged his disciples to take a horse without asking permission (Matthew 21).

The "humble" Jesus said that he was "greater than the temple" (Matt 12:6), "greater than Jonah" (Matthew 12:41), and "greater than Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). He appeared to suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30).

Come on, Mal, you can do better than this! Show me something more scholarly, more open to rational debate, not just a truckload of quotes (and misquotes) and asinine paraphrases of quotes which need a whole lot of context to be properly understood, culled from some stupid website and then spewed out here without any editing or comment. What are you doing on these websites anyway, where ignorant petty-minded haters snoop around the property of the great and noble, desperately trying to scrounge up something to discredit them?


uhm... if you yourself find so many fundamental flaws in Christian Scripture, why follow it? If the accounts of God and Jesus that are portrayed in various christian holy books are simply the writings of men, and most probably men with an agenda scattered over centuries, doesn't it render everything else into question?
I think the time has now arrived that you become an Atheist... you do know don't you, that when you become an atheist we send you a free t-shirt and coffee mug?;)

We don't love and admire someone for being flawless and perfect, but because he's charismatic and exceptional, a total rock star, and whose teachings really work for us. :) I can understand though why it may not work for others, and I have nothing against atheists, having been one myself till about the age of twenty-five. On matters of religion I follow Gandhi more than anyone else - "The golden rule of conduct ... is mutual toleration, seeing that we will never all think alike and we shall always see Truth in fragments and from different angles of vision. Even amongst the most conscientious persons, there will be room enough for honest differences of opinion. The only possible rule of conduct in any civilized society is, therefore, mutual toleration."

[Lokasenna]

Yes, but what you've missed is that Jesus can at any time back away from the crucifixion. In fact that is Satan's last ditch effort in the affair, to tempt him from a selfless act to save mankind. That's the whole point, he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his own freewill. And yes, I am an atheist.:)

Ah, but can you direct me to a verse in the Bible that says this? We must be careful about separating what is actually in the Bible from centuries of Church teachings.

Mona, thank you for your intelligent and considered reply. With regard to Jesus's treatment of his mother, I was thinking of the infamous 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' line (John 2:4), and also his disowning of Mary while he was preaching (Matthew 12:46-50). You suggest that mal's list of Bible quotations that paint Jesus in an unflattering light are taken out of context... but are you not in some ways doing the same when you choose to ignore certain Bible passages, or to prioritise some over others? Why should Jesus's insane condemnation of the fig tree, or his incorrect assumption that the Apocalypse was imminent, have less validity than the Sermon on the Mount?

[mal4mac]

Yes, but what you've missed is that Jesus can at any time back away from the crucifixion. In fact that is Satan's last ditch effort in the affair, to tempt him from a selfless act to save mankind. That's the whole point, he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his own freewill. And yes, I am an atheist.:)

How is this an ultimate sacrifice? He knows he's going to heaven, he even knows he's coming back! So where's the sacrifice? It's hard playing devil's advocate :reddevil:, I'd let them defend their own fantasy.

[Jackson Richardson]

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

[Iain Sparrow]

How is this an ultimate sacrifice? He knows he's going to heaven, he even knows he's coming back! So where's the sacrifice? It's hard playing devil's advocate :reddevil:, I'd let them defend their own fantasy.

As JonathanB points out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"... whether we take this as real or mythology, it seems to reveal that Jesus has been abandoned by all his followers, and God. From the POV of Jesus, he has the weight of humanity on his shoulders, a weight none of us can fathom. If the sacrifice was predestine, than indeed it is no sacrifice at all... but if Jesus is also a man, than failure is an option.
Devil's advocate?.. yeah, I'm an atheist.:)

[mona amon]

Yes, I don't think anyone who actually reads the accounts of the Passion in the Gospels can be unmoved.


Mona, thank you for your intelligent and considered reply. With regard to Jesus's treatment of his mother, I was thinking of the infamous 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' line (John 2:4), and also his disowning of Mary while he was preaching (Matthew 12:46-50). You suggest that mal's list of Bible quotations that paint Jesus in an unflattering light are taken out of context... but are you not in some ways doing the same when you choose to ignore certain Bible passages, or to prioritise some over others? Why should Jesus's insane condemnation of the fig tree, or his incorrect assumption that the Apocalypse was imminent, have less validity than the Sermon on the Mount?

Unflattering quotes do not bother me, especially if they are used to support reasoned argument. After all they are nothing but a portion of a text that I know and love. It is difficult to reply to a whole bunch of quotes (and misquotes), however, because one cannot simply dismiss the importance of context. Quotes often become meaningless if there's no reference to who the person was addressing, what the situation was, what is said about the same subject in other places, whether it is metaphoric or to be taken literally, and so on. We might peer myopically at a small detail of a painting for purposes of study, but ultimately we have to step back and view the big picture.

Anyway, I went through some of the passages usually quoted as showing Jesus in an unflattering light (I've used Mal's post #10 as a rough guide), and here are my comments. I've tried to be unbiased, but that's not really possible because we cannot help seeing things through our own personal filter -

Yes he was rude and uncivil in speech and even obnoxious to the scribes and Pharisees, using terms like "serpents!" and "brood of vipers!" and "hypocrites!" He calls Peter "Satan!" and all this after specifically declaring that anyone who calls his brother "fool" is in danger of hell fire. He is hyperbolic (Sermon on the Mount) and vituperative (the magnificent rant against the Pharisees in Matthew 17). He is haughty, declaring himself to be greater than Solomon and Jonah. He riots in the temple, chasing the moneychangers with a whip. He breaks rules and traditions, often encouraging his disciples to do so, eats, drinks and makes merry with publicans and sinners, and rejects the fasting and asceticism of the disciples of John the Baptist. Does all this make Jesus a horrible person, especially when you balance it with the rest of the story, in which Jesus comes off as a truly admirable person? I feel the only ones who would be surprised by all this are those who had a preconception of him as some sort of meek, humble, strait laced do-gooder, or thought that Christians regard him as such.

One specific quote -

Matthew 15: 22-28 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A22-28 - This one's a biggie, shocking everyone who comes across it for the first time, because Jesus is being a total bigot and referring to the Canaanites as 'Dogs" to their face, yet I rarely see this on any Jesus-bashing website. It is among the quotes in Mal's post but there it is described as Jesus refusing "to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother", a surprisingly watered down and softened version of the actual passage. I think, with the Canaanite woman's gently ironic rebuke having the desired effect on Jesus, the story ends up being very appealing, even if it shows Jesus in an anything but appealing light.


Why should Jesus's insane condemnation of the fig tree, or his incorrect assumption that the Apocalypse was imminent, have less validity than the Sermon on the Mount?

I'm not that keen on The Sermon on the Mount actually. Too hyperbolic, though there's good stuff there. About the Apocalypse, I don't know anything about its general validity to Christian doctrine (most Christians are pretty ignorant about Christian doctrine anyway). I was saying it doesn't bother me, because nothing that I hold important in Christ's teachings is rendered invalid by Jesus being wrong about the Second Coming. If it makes his threats of eternal hell fire more suspect, well, I've never met anyone who actually believed they were going to hell anyway.

The fig tree - just one isolated incident. Jesus, suffering from a bit of hypoglycemia, throws a hissy-fit and shrivels up the fig tree. It's the only example of a malevolent miracle, and the only victim is the fig tree, not a person, or even a mighty old oak. :)

[Ecurb]

Good post, Mona. Jesus was "not a tame lion" (to quote C.S. Lewis about Aslan). Here's Ezra Pound's take. "Fere" is "mate or companion, and the ballad is written in fishermans' slang. Pound revels in Jesus' masculinity:


295. Ballad of the Goodly Fere

By Ezra Pound


Simon Zelotes speaketh it somewhile after the Crucifixion.


HA’ we lost the goodliest fere o’ all
For the priests and the gallows tree?
Aye lover he was of brawny men,
O’ ships and the open sea.

When they came wi’ a host to take Our Man 5
His smile was good to see,
“First let these go!” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Or I’ll see ye damned,” says he.

Aye he sent us out through the crossed high spears
And the scorn of his laugh rang free, 10
“Why took ye not me when I walked about
Alone in the town?” says he.

Oh we drank his “Hale” in the good red wine
When we last made company.
No capon priest was the Goodly Fere, 15
But a man o’ men was he.

I ha’ seen him drive a hundred men
Wi’ a bundle o’ cords swung free,
That they took the high and holy house
For their pawn and treasury. 20

They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book, I think,
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.

If they think they ha’ snared our Goodly Fere 25
They are fools to the last degree.
“I’ll go to the feast,” quo’ our Goodly Fere,
“Though I go to the gallows tree.”

“Ye ha’ seen me heal the lame and blind,
And wake the dead,” says he. 30
“Ye shall see one thing to master all:
’Tis how a brave man dies on the tree.”

A son of God was the Goodly Fere
That bade us his brothers be.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men. 35
I have seen him upon the tree.

He cried no cry when they drave the nails
And the blood gushed hot and free.
The hounds of the crimson sky gave tongue,
But never a cry cried he. 40

I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men
On the hills o’ Galilee.
They whined as he walked out calm between,
Wi’ his eyes like the gray o’ the sea.

Like the sea that brooks no voyaging, 45
With the winds unleashed and free,
Like the sea that he cowed at Genseret
Wi’ twey words spoke suddently.

A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea. 50
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.

I ha’ seen him eat o’ the honey-comb
Sin’ they nailed him to the tree.

[mona amon]

Thanks, Ecurb. :)

[HCabret]

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?god is human. There is a reason he didn't come to earth to save all the pelicans or emporer penguins from sin.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Here's my problem. I don't actually see you as a theist, but as an atheist who is focused on generating anti-Christian rhetoric and using your alleged apotheosis to claim a pseudo-theism.

As far as genocide goes, I consider atheists such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to be worse than anything Christians (or other legitimate theists) have come up with. So my contempt goes toward them.



To make sure I understand, you are saying that "gnosis" generates self-righteousness. This makes sense since you are the God grounding your self-righteousness. However, because of the violence in your atheology, I reject this gnosis as delusional and claim it is just another form of self-righteous atheism.

If your own opinion of what I am, which is wrong, is what you will base replies on then we obviously will not be able to chat.

I will talk white and you will hear black.

I will take what you see as my delusion and go home.

I am not anti theism. I am against idol worship and poor morals and that is why I go after Christians and Islam while promoting Gnostic Christianity as it is demonstrably more moral than most of the Abrahamic cults.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

The only possible rule of conduct in any civilized society is, therefore, mutual toleration."[/I]

Tolerate what should be and not what should not.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

mona amon If you tolerate what is shown then you help evil grow.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

If your own opinion of what I am, which is wrong, is what you will base replies on then we obviously will not be able to chat.

I will talk white and you will hear black.

I will take what you see as my delusion and go home.

I am not anti theism. I am against idol worship and poor morals and that is why I go after Christians and Islam while promoting Gnostic Christianity as it is demonstrably more moral than most of the Abrahamic cults.

Regards
DLmy religion is better than yours! I am people thinking differently than I do! I am god and I decide what is moral and what is not!

Morality is NOT objective!

[HCabret]

Tolerate what should be and not what should not.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

For the evils of religion to grow.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHa...x=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9...eature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Z...eature=related

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

mona amon If you tolerate what is shown then you help evil grow.

Regards
DLwho decides what is or isn't "evil"? You? Are you there god? It's me, Margaret.

[Ecurb]

Ezra Pound's take on literalist interpretations (and also, I think, on quote mining to object to Jesus) is one of my favorite stanzas of the poem I posted above:


They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book, I think,
Though they write it cunningly;
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere
But aye loved the open sea.

The map is not the territory. Also, atheistic objections to God killing first born Egyptians or flooding the earth seem silly and egocentric, to me. We are all mortal, doomed to die (perhaps by our creator). Why object to specific instances of our fate (a worldwide flood), when God is (acc. religious people) equally responsible for our mortality in general? To every man upon this earth, Death cometh soon or late (as Macauley has Horatio say). From the infinite perspective, how can sooner or later make much difference?

[HCabret]

Ezra Pound's take on literalist interpretations (and also, I think, on quote mining to object to Jesus) is one of my favorite stanzas of the poem I posted above:



The map is not the territory. Also, atheistic objections to God killing first born Egyptians or flooding the earth seem silly and egocentric, to me. We are all mortal, doomed to die (perhaps by our creator). Why object to specific instances of our fate (a worldwide flood), when God is (acc. religious people) equally responsible for our mortality in general? To every man upon this earth, Death cometh soon or late (as Macauley has Horatio say). From the infinite perspective, how can sooner or later make much difference?Ezra Pound was a fascist. Of course he was against free thinking.

[Iain Sparrow]

Yes, I don't think anyone who actually reads the accounts of the Passion in the Gospels can be unmoved.

Unflattering quotes do not bother me, especially if they are used to support reasoned argument. After all they are nothing but a portion of a text that I know and love. It is difficult to reply to a whole bunch of quotes (and misquotes), however, because one cannot simply dismiss the importance of context. Quotes often become meaningless if there's no reference to who the person was addressing, what the situation was, what is said about the same subject in other places, whether it is metaphoric or to be taken literally, and so on. We might peer myopically at a small detail of a painting for purposes of study, but ultimately we have to step back and view the big picture.

Anyway, I went through some of the passages usually quoted as showing Jesus in an unflattering light (I've used Mal's post #10 as a rough guide), and here are my comments. I've tried to be unbiased, but that's not really possible because we cannot help seeing things through our own personal filter -

Yes he was rude and uncivil in speech and even obnoxious to the scribes and Pharisees, using terms like "serpents!" and "brood of vipers!" and "hypocrites!" He calls Peter "Satan!" and all this after specifically declaring that anyone who calls his brother "fool" is in danger of hell fire. He is hyperbolic (Sermon on the Mount) and vituperative (the magnificent rant against the Pharisees in Matthew 17). He is haughty, declaring himself to be greater than Solomon and Jonah. He riots in the temple, chasing the moneychangers with a whip. He breaks rules and traditions, often encouraging his disciples to do so, eats, drinks and makes merry with publicans and sinners, and rejects the fasting and asceticism of the disciples of John the Baptist. Does all this make Jesus a horrible person, especially when you balance it with the rest of the story, in which Jesus comes off as a truly admirable person? I feel the only ones who would be surprised by all this are those who had a preconception of him as some sort of meek, humble, strait laced do-gooder, or thought that Christians regard him as such.

One specific quote -

Matthew 15: 22-28 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15%3A22-28 - This one's a biggie, shocking everyone who comes across it for the first time, because Jesus is being a total bigot and referring to the Canaanites as 'Dogs" to their face, yet I rarely see this on any Jesus-bashing website. It is among the quotes in Mal's post but there it is described as Jesus refusing "to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother", a surprisingly watered down and softened version of the actual passage. I think, with the Canaanite woman's gently ironic rebuke having the desired effect on Jesus, the story ends up being very appealing, even if it shows Jesus in an anything but appealing light.



I'm not that keen on The Sermon on the Mount actually. Too hyperbolic, though there's good stuff there. About the Apocalypse, I don't know anything about its general validity to Christian doctrine (most Christians are pretty ignorant about Christian doctrine anyway). I was saying it doesn't bother me, because nothing that I hold important in Christ's teachings is rendered invalid by Jesus being wrong about the Second Coming. If it makes his threats of eternal hell fire more suspect, well, I've never met anyone who actually believed they were going to hell anyway.

The fig tree - just one isolated incident. Jesus, suffering from a bit of hypoglycemia, throws a hissy-fit and shrivels up the fig tree. It's the only example of a malevolent miracle, and the only victim is the fig tree, not a person, or even a mighty old oak. :)

I think these are aspects of Jesus as Man, that in the biblical myth he feels anger, sorrow, reproach, grief, self-doubt, and the same emotions and temptations we all face... though it is curious he is never recorded as having any sexual lust. It would have been kind of neat if at least one scripture had Jesus checking out a pretty girl at the local club and saying "did it hurt... when you fell from heaven". I mean he was a good looking guy, and a rebel... I would have liked to have read about Jesus, the player.:)

[mal4mac]

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

What a drama queen! He can walk on water, bring people back to life, he knows he's going to heaven, and he knows he's coming back. He knows he hasn't been abandoned by God, because he performed all those miracles that can only be inspired by God.

It's like a loving father who puts his child on the naughty step and the child says, "I hate you!" Child doesn't of course, it's just a strong way to express momentary frustration. In the same way I can't see how Jesus can really think he has been forsaken. He's acting for the crowd, or acting like a naughty child.

Mark 14:61-62 Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Also that statement doesn't seem very brave. Contrast it with the death of Socrates - he didn't ask why philosophy had forsaken him, he applied his philosophy as he had always done and went bravely to his death without any ignorant caterwauling. Same goes for the deaths of Seneca and Epicurus. These philosophers had no firm conviction that they were specially chose by God, but died brave deaths, without being overly dramatic or acting like naughty children.

[mal4mac]

The poem by Pound scans well but there are problems with it!



“Ye ha’ seen me heal the lame and blind,
And wake the dead,” says he. 30
“Ye shall see one thing to master all:
’Tis how a brave man dies on the tree.”

A son of God was the Goodly Fere
That bade us his brothers be.
I ha’ seen him cow a thousand men. 35
I have seen him upon the tree.

He cried no cry when they drave the nails
And the blood gushed hot and free.
The hounds of the crimson sky gave tongue,
But never a cry cried he.

OK he didn't cry when they drove the nails in, but he did shout, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." later. Sounds like a cry to me!

[Gnostic Bishop]

who decides what is or isn't "evil"? You? Are you there god? It's me, Margaret.

As you said in post 28 but applied to me. I am.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

Ezra Pound's take on literalist interpretations (and also, I think, on quote mining to object to Jesus) is one of my favorite stanzas of the poem I posted above:



The map is not the territory. Also, atheistic objections to God killing first born Egyptians or flooding the earth seem silly and egocentric, to me. We are all mortal, doomed to die (perhaps by our creator). Why object to specific instances of our fate (a worldwide flood), when God is (acc. religious people) equally responsible for our mortality in general? To every man upon this earth, Death cometh soon or late (as Macauley has Horatio say). From the infinite perspective, how can sooner or later make much difference?

Yes. We all die. Some by moral means and others by the immoral murder of your God.

Strange that you forgive your God for evil against children and babies.

There is something wrong with the morality you spew. Your religion has corrupted your morals.

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

Yes. We all die. Some by moral means and others by the immoral murder of your God.

Strange that you forgive your God for evil against children and babies.

There is something wrong with the morality you spew. Your religion has corrupted your morals.

Regards
DL

I'm an atheist. If my morals have been corrupted, it is YOUR religion that has done the trick.

I think its strange to blame God for killing children and babies, when He obviously created a world (the story goes) where everyone dies. He kills the baby who dies of "natural causes" just as surely as He killed the Firstborn Egyptians. Applying human morality to God is simply silly -- if death is an evil, God is to blame for his entire creation. If death is not an evil, we can hardly blame Him for specific instances of murder. The entire argument is completely wrong-headed.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm an atheist. If my morals have been corrupted, it is YOUR religion that has done the trick.

I think its strange to blame God for killing children and babies, when He obviously created a world (the story goes) where everyone dies. He kills the baby who dies of "natural causes" just as surely as He killed the Firstborn Egyptians. Applying human morality to God is simply silly -- if death is an evil, God is to blame for his entire creation. If death is not an evil, we can hardly blame Him for specific instances of murder. The entire argument is completely wrong-headed.

Seems neither of us know whet the other is about.

Poor communication all around.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Seems neither of us know whet the other is about.

Poor communication all around.

Regards
DLim a polytheist. A pagan. You are but only one god in a sea of gods.! You are the God of Domestic Violence! His royal majesty, Lord Ray Rice of Baltimore.

[HCabret]

As you said in post 28 but applied to me. I am.

Regards
DL
You are what? You are the sole and final arbiter of all morality? How long did you have to go to college to get that gig?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Thanks for this. Done here.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Thanks for this. Done here.

Regards
DL
I like you Roger.

[MANICHAEAN]

I personally find the human aspects of Jesus appealing and something I can relate to. Quick temper, a sharp tongue, mixing with the money lenders, obstinancy, treatment of fallen women, liked a glass of wine etc.

Dear Lord, if only some of the politicians these days could exhibit such so called " weaknesses," akin the Son of Man.

[Frostball]

I personally find the human aspects of Jesus appealing and something I can relate to. Quick temper, a sharp tongue, mixing with the money lenders, obstinancy, treatment of fallen women, liked a glass of wine etc.

Dear Lord, if only some of the politicians these days could exhibit such so called " weaknesses," akin the Son of Man.

I'm an atheist, but.. Your way of putting it might be one of the most attractive views of Jesus I've heard.

[MANICHAEAN]

Congratulations, but with a bit of luck, (maybe even the intervention of Divine Providence), it might be a prejudice you can overcome.

Bit like being a vegin and reverting to man's carnivour origins.

[HCabret]

Congratulations, but with a bit of luck, (maybe even the intervention of Divine Providence), it might be a prejudice you can overcome.

Bit like being a vegin and reverting to man's carnivour origins.early man probably had a diet resembling those of the other contemporary great apes. Gorillas sit around and eat bamboo all day. Early man probably did not partake in the energy and time expensive activity of hunting until much later when it developed more advanced technology.

[HCabret]

I personally find the human aspects of Jesus appealing and something I can relate to. Quick temper, a sharp tongue, mixing with the money lenders, obstinancy, treatment of fallen women, liked a glass of wine etc.

Dear Lord, if only some of the politicians these days could exhibit such so called " weaknesses," akin the Son of Man.politicians? What about the voters? They are the real morons in a democracy.

[Gnostic Bishop]

I personally find the human aspects of Jesus appealing and something I can relate to. Quick temper, a sharp tongue, mixing with the money lenders, obstinancy, treatment of fallen women, liked a glass of wine etc.

Dear Lord, if only some of the politicians these days could exhibit such so called " weaknesses," akin the Son of Man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded

I like the Jesus I know, the esoteric human one who is not God, but do not like the usual biblical Jesus much. Too many of his policies, especially his no divorce policy, is anti-love and quite immoral.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm an atheist, but.. Your way of putting it might be one of the most attractive views of Jesus I've heard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

The worse sin Christianity did was to tie Jesus and his decent name to the genocidal son murdering prick of the O.T..

Unfortunately, when Constantine bought the church, he made Christianity accept Jesus as divine and screwed things up royally.

That literal belief is what caused the Dark Ages and Inquisitions.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

politicians? What about the voters? They are the real morons in a democracy.

Where have you found a democracy?

As I look about, I just see Oligarchies. I do agree that most voters ar not well educated in what they are voting for and the politicians would have it no other way. Neither would the real owners of our countries. The last thing they want is a well educated electorate. Way to hard to control people who can think.

That is why early Christians killed off the Gnostic Christians and other free thinking peoples.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Where have you found a democracy?

As I look about, I just see Oligarchies. I do agree that most voters ar not well educated in what they are voting for and the politicians would have it no other way. Neither would the real owners of our countries. The last thing they want is a well educated electorate. Way to hard to control people who can think.

That is why early Christians killed off the Gnostic Christians and other free thinking peoples.

Regards
DLi'd say most people consider America a democracy, or at least view democracy in a positive light. Democracy is deeply flawed. And has nothing to do with early Christians.

[MANICHAEAN]

Agreed.

6th Century City State in Athens.

America? Who said voters have to be intelligent? / Who said politicians have to be manipulative?

"Never give a sucker an even break" was the dictum of W.C.Fields.

[Gnostic Bishop]

i'd say most people consider America a democracy, or at least view democracy in a positive light. Democracy is deeply flawed. And has nothing to do with early Christians.

Democracy came out of Rome via Greece did it not?

So did the version of Christianity we have here.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Democracy came out of Rome via Greece did it not?

So did the version of Christianity we have here.

Regards
DLid say democracy came out of Greece via Greece. Christianity came out of Palestine on the West Bank of the Jordan river in Asia.

[Gnostic Bishop]

id say democracy came out of Greece via Greece. Christianity came out of Palestine on the West Bank of the Jordan river in Asia.

Constantine would not agree. He made Christianity what it is today when he bought it and forced his doctrines, like that foolish Trinity doctrine down Christianity's throat.

Regards
DL

[Frostball]

Isn't the US a republic?

[HCabret]

Isn't the US a republic?all the word "Republic" means is that the government is a public entity. The phrase "Res Publica" in Latin literally means "public business". So yes, the US is a "republic". It is accurate to say that the US has a "democracy within a republic". Democracy is rule by the people, so pretty much any state which involves some level of citizen decision making is a democracy of some flavour or another.

I personally do not like democracy as it usually implies "majority rules" or "51%+", which leaves morality in the hands of the majority, which may or may not be any sort of rational. My favourite sort of government is called "Common Law Republic", which is described in very vague terms in the last paragraph of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.

[HCabret]

Constantine would not agree. He made Christianity what it is today when he bought it anf forced his doctrines, like that foolish Trinity doctrine down Christianity's throat.

Regards
DL
It called CHRISTianity, not CONSTANTINanity. Orthodox Christians, Armenian Catholics, and Coptics would also likely disagree. The universe does not centre around Rome.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Isn't the US a republic?

All countries are Oligarchies.

Money rules the world. Our politicians are there just to make you think you have a say. You have none. Money control the media and everything else.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

It called CHRISTianity, not CONSTANTINanity. Orthodox Christians, Armenian Catholics, and Coptics would also likely disagree. The universe does not centre around Rome.

Not now but back then it did and Constantine set Christianity's theology.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

All countries are Oligarchies.

Money rules the world. Our politicians are there just to make you think you have a say. You have none. Money control the media and everything else.

Regards
DL
What's wrong with money? Or Oligarchy for that matter? Would you prefer a majoritarian dictatorship?

[HCabret]

Not now but back then it did and Constantine set Christianity's theology.

Regards
DL
Constantine helped shape the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, but even today, the many branches of Christianity vary significantly from one another. More Christians live outside of Europe than live inside of Europe. The world does centre around Rome.

[Gnostic Bishop]

What's wrong with money? Or Oligarchy for that matter? Would you prefer a majoritarian dictatorship?

I stated facts. I did not complain. I also stated that I would prefer a Timocratic tyranny.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

I stated facts. I did not complain. I also stated that I would prefer a Timocratic tyranny.

Regards
DLso you don't think poor people should have a say? What's wrong with being poor?

[Gnostic Bishop]

so you don't think poor people should have a say? What's wrong with being poor?

It is hard on the body as the poor do not live as long as those who are not.

That is the biggest wrong I would guess.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

It is hard on the body as the poor do not live as long as those who are not.

That is the biggest wrong I would guess.

Regards
DLso you want to make it illegal to be poor because they don't live long enough for you?

[Gnostic Bishop]

so you want to make it illegal to be poor because they don't live long enough for you?

I would not mind legislating hat if I could. I cannot.

I may not have to since schools are doing breakfast for kids in many areas, I would say that most are finding it moral to insure the best start for the poor and perhaps will do well in giving them a few more years of life, --- as the rich get.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

I would not mind legislating hat if I could. I cannot.

I may not have to since schools are doing breakfast for kids in many areas, I would say that most are finding it moral to insure the best start for the poor and perhaps will do well in giving them a few more years of life, --- as the rich get.

Regards
DLwow! You hate Christians and women and poor "people". How do you live such a hateful life?

[Gnostic Bishop]

wow! You hate Christians and women and poor "people". How do you live such a hateful life?

Now you are just being stupid.

Regards
DL

[HCabret]

Now you are just being stupid.

Regards
DLi finally caught up to you! You started long before I did.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Some random thoughts on Jesus in the NT that occur to me (in no particular order):

1. Jesus was a hell of a lot angrier than I remember. Everyone knows the money-lenders-in-the-temple story, but he spends quite a lot of time stamping around the Holy Land being nasty to lots of harmless people...

Yes, we have this view of Jesus that he was all warm and full of love and forgiveness, at least that's the impression I got from my catechism classes in grammar school. We learn that the "Good Thief" crucified next to Jesus will be rewarded in Heaven, and that's wonderful. We also learn that the other guy will not... But there is much else in his teaching that seems quite harsh and unforgiving, that was pretty clear when I read the Gospels. He required his followers to renounce their families, wealth, and comforts. It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven...

It does seem that his prime commandment was to "love" others as we love ourselves. Jesus told us "to turn the other cheek" when struck, and he commanded Peter to put down his sword, because "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword." He went on to perform his last miracle by reattaching the ear that Peter had just lopped off. This is quite different from the OT commandments. The OT is full of folks, like Samson and David, and even Moses, who were righteous and did not "turn the other cheek" but instead smote down their enemies.

I think that a major difference between the OT and NT is the NT emphasis on love over hate.

One of the most comforting Christian prayers is the "Our Father." But if we read this prayer closely, we note that it says: "Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Many who recite this prayer may not appreciate the conditional nature of the promised forgiveness, a forgiveness which is conditional on our forgiveness of those who trespass against us.

[Gnostic Bishop]

Not to forget. Do not lead us into temptation.

I thought that was Satan's job but the ancients seemed to think God was the one to watch.

Have you ever heard the Exsultet hymn?

It says --- On necessary sin of Adam and calls it a happy fault.

Strange.

Regards
DL

[totoro]

The Jesus I know seems like more of a character in a story book than an actual person. It's like I said in another thread, there are a lot of people who say he never existed in the first place, or if he did he was just a prophet. I don't mean to disrespect anyone's beliefs but I often wonder how people know if he really was real or not. Besides the Bible, are there any records of his existence? And yes, this is a serious question.

[Gnostic Bishop]

The Jesus I know seems like more of a character in a story book than an actual person. It's like I said in another thread, there are a lot of people who say he never existed in the first place, or if he did he was just a prophet. I don't mean to disrespect anyone's beliefs but I often wonder how people know if he really was real or not. Besides the Bible, are there any records of his existence? And yes, this is a serious question.

The Jesus Project is the latest effort by a whole slew of scholars to try to answer that and they say myth. That does not satisfy theists though as if they accept that, their whole savior theology breaks down and so does their literalist form of Christianity.

As a Gnostic Christian, I am all in for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

What clinches it for me is that Jesus is not a part of God till Constantine had to force the Trinity concept down Christianity's throat to make Jesus divine. If Jesus had always been so, that would be one thing, but this happened almost 300 years after Jesus dies.

That is like us today canonizing Christopher Columbus. Ridiculous.

Regards
DL

[totoro]

Interesting, thank you :)