Amen.

Especially to the part, "He taught a message of love and forgiveness that has since been tragically twisted."

From my perspective the religion that demands that Jesus is "The Christ" only serves to use Jesus as an excuse to belittle and degrade anyone who doesn't support "The Christians Christ Theory". That theory being that if you don't cower down to everything the Christians say and accept Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh they will shun you and refuse to accept you as part of their society. At least in the sense of being an honorable person.

So from my perspective what Jesus actually stood for, and what Christianity stands for, are two entirely different things.

In fact Miles just pointed this out in another thread using the scriptures themselves:



Even Jesus is saying that this Pagan Roman centurion and "many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven".

Clearly the Pagan Roman was not accepting Jesus as his "sacrificial lamb", nor was this Pagan Roman asking for forgiveness of his sins, nor was he promising to obey Jesus as his lord. Yet here Jesus is saying of this Pagan Roman, "Assuredly, I say to you, I have not FOUND such great FAITH, not even in ISRAEL !

Well, he clearly couldn't have been speaking about faith in the God of Abraham, nor in a faith that Jesus was the son of the God of Abraham. So we can know with certainty that neither of things things were important to Jesus, nor were they what Jesus expected Israel to place their FAITH in!

So clearly the religion called "Christianity" has it all wrong.

What they deem to be important and what Jesus deemed to be important are obviously two entirely different things.

It means nothing....to me.

I didn't know the man, I wasn't there, I didn't translate his words, nor do I now.


If I stopped and thought about it now.........







.......nup, still means nothing.

I could however, attempt to translate it now into what I THINK it means...but it would be skewed by over 2000 years of chinese whisper=type interpretations I have been subjected to over the course of my 47 years, and my own personal outlook.

Oh come on Jess, you could sort through all that and take a stab at what you believe he might have meant, or how things might have been mistranslated, assuming he even actually existed at all.

Although, BEWARE!

There exists radical people known as "Christian Fundamentalists" who will publicly crucify your character and motives should your conclusions not match up with theirs 100% verbatim in every detail.

So be forewarned.

"Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the light.."


To me this means exactly what it says, Jesus the way, he is the way to God, He is the truth, his words where and are truth, and he is the light, He has lit the way for us to follow, its not literal

for me following Jesus's teaching is a way of life,

Still?


Jeeeeez James......I thought we (as a species) have finally accepted evolution and evolved...

Only the more highly evolved members of our species have done that. Unfortunately there are still a few stragglers and they can indeed be as dangerous as apes. So beware, just because an animal appears to be a fully evolved human, don't trust it. It could still have the brain of a partially evolved primate.

I'm sorry you have encountered this in your life my friend. This is not how Jesus taught us to live our lives and treat others. Jesus taught to love ALL people. This would include, Atheists, Buddhists, and everyone else with every other belief. If one doesn't believe, that is their choice. It is not our place to judge, as a matter of fact we have been told not to do so. So again, I'm sorry to hear you've encountered this unfortunate even in that past.

Well, if you're sincerely sorry about it, then quite doing it.

All you ever do is belittle everyone you ever talk with about Jesus.

They give you their views of who and what they feel Jesus represents and you belittle them and degrade them by talking down to them and totally ignoring everything they say in favor of speaking AT them as if you are a personal representative of Jesus who is clearly far above them in your understanding of who Jesus was and what he stood for.

So, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you're doing precisely this yourself. You belittle and degrade everyone you speak to about Jesus by insulting their views of Jesus and demanding that your views must reigns supreme.

My views of Jesus are totally respectable, and even more logically plausible than the orthodox Christian views. My views don't require any supernatural interventions, other than the spiritual insight that is available to all humans.

Yet you have constantly refused to acknowledge my views of Jesus and have instead, you have constantly talked AT me instead of "with" me. We have never had a "conversation" because you refuse to listen to the other person. You totally reject and dismiss their views as being totally irrelevant in the face of you supreme arrogance.

It's impossible to speak "with you". Words bounce right off your ears and reflect from your eyes without entering your mind because you flatly refuse to respect the view of another person. You have decided that you're religion and your belief that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God is the sole truth, and anyone who refuses to accept your views on this will forever be talked AT rather than with.

You do not have the capacity of even considering another person's view of who Jesus might have been or what he might have stood for.

So all you ever do is belittle and degrade everyone that you speak to about Jesus by flatly refusing to hear their views with an open and accepting mind.

I have accepted your views that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham.

I'm still waiting for you to accept my views that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

When you can do that, then we can say that we've communicated. Until then, all you're doing is taking AT me and refusing to acknowledge my views.

If anyone were to ever asked me if I had ever talked "with you", I'd have to say no, I haven't. Cowboy has never be open to listening. All he does belittle and degrade me by refusing to acknowledge my views whilst demanding that I must worship his views as the "word of God".

So I consider you to be a prime example of precisely what negative affects Christianity *can have* on some people unfortunately. And I definitely see you using the religion to belittle and degrade everyone and anyone who refuses to cower down to your views.

I forgive you, for I fully understand that you know not what you do. You're obviously totally oblivious to what you are doing. I don't doubt that for one second.

But it doesn't change the fact that your conviction to Christianity it what caused you to become the way you are.

I belittle and degrade nothing. I give my thoughts on the subject, someone replies, I give my thoughts on what they said. I belittle nothing. I discuss. Just because someone's belief doesn't agree with yours and or is contrary or complete opposite doesn't mean they are "belittling" or "degrading" your beliefs. They just are stating they do not agree with it. We're in a discussion forum, this forum is ment for discussion of our differences and similarities. Just don't know why you take it so personal when someone differs from you. You take it as someone's preaching at you, especially when it comes from the Christian faith. But I'm sorry to tell you, what you do is just as much "preaching" as us Christians do in this forum. We're ALL just here to discuss our religious beliefs, no one's "preaching" no one's "belittling" the other no one is "degrading" the other. We are merely DISAGREEING.

Again, this is a forum for discussing our different religious beliefs. You have decided that you're religion and your belief that Jesus was a Buddhist or what ever is the sole truth, and anyone who refuses to accept your views on this will forever be talked AT rather than with.

No, that's not true at all. This is why I forgive you, for you know not what you do. You jump to totally incorrect assumptions and either refuse to see the truth, or you are in some sort of denial concerning the truth.

I have never stated that it is a "sole truth" that Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist. All I have ever suggested is that as far as I can see this is the best plausible explanation for who Jesus most likely was, assuming he even existed at all.

It's true that do personally believe that it's likely that he did exist, and that he did teach against the ways of the Torah as the scriptures of the New Testament suggest. I also believe that it is very likely that he was indeed crucified for his views.

Keep in mind here what I'm saying, "I believe it is highly likely that all those thing actually happened". I'm not claiming to know this with absolute certainty. I'm not saying that this needs to be anyone's "sole truth", it's certainly not even my own "sole truth". I'm open to the possibility that Jesus never even existed at all and the people who believe that he was a totally made up fictional character could indeed be correct.

I confess, that I'm not open to the Christian orthodox view. I've studied that view in extreme depth for decades, and I've concluded that it simply isn't tenable. So I personally don't consider that to be a viable option.

After having studying the history of Buddhism it became vividly apparent to me that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That scenario makes the most sense based on everything I know. So for me, that scenario holds [color]"The most highly probable explanation" for who Jesus might have been and what he might have taught.

So, no Cowboy, you're totally wrong and totally confused. I do not hold out that it is any sort of 'absolute truth' that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. What I do hold out, is that based on everything that I know about the situation this is currently the most plausible scenario I can offer. And thus, for me, it's "the most believable" of all the scenarios I've heard thus far.

Where in any of that do you get that I'm holding this out to be any sort of "Sole Truth"?

~~~~~

Moreover, I'm not even asking you to accept or believe any of this. All I have ever asked from you is to respect that this is my view.

I accept that you have accepted the standard orthodox Christian picture. I fully understand that this is what you have chosen to believe on PURE FAITH, as you have pointed out so many times.

~~~~~

The only reason you continue to "butt heads" with me, is because you are insistent about shoving your view onto me as though they are some sort of "sole truth".

You're the only person between the two of us who seems to believe that he has some sort of "sole truth".

Because I certainly don't! All I have to offer are very well researched plausibility scenarios.

You confuse that with somehow being an "attack" on your supposed "sole truth".

You're the one who has a "sole truth" that needs to be defended, and protected, "spread" throughout the world. Not me.

In fact, face it Cowboy, you've already confessed on several occasions that you are a "servant" of your "lord" on a mission to "spread his word".

You're not out to have any realistic open-minded respectable discussions as you keep claiming:



Do you really want to say that? After you have already confessed that you are indeed working as a "servant" to spread the word of your "lord"?

That's PREACHING, Cowboy.

So why pretend that you're not preaching when in fact you have already confessed as much?

Does honestly need to be tossed out the window in order to become a preacher?

That's why I decided not to become one!

If you're "spreading the gospel", you're an evangelical preacher even if you believe to have only been ordained by Jesus himself.

And you have already confessed as much.

Why can't you at least preach HONESTLY, and stop "pretending" that you're interested in "discussing" religious beliefs, when in fact, all you are interested in doing is spreading the word of YOUR RELIGION as though it is the "SOLE TRUTH".

Who's doing that again?

Certainly not me!

I just have a plausibility scenario to offer anyone who might be interested.

You're the only one who believes that he has a "SOLE TRUTH" that everyone must accept.

Because of the fact that you renounce other people's beliefs and continue to confess this as it were a fact.



Ditto my friend. Don't know why you take it as "preaching" and have stated it that way a few times. All I'm doing is having a DISCUSSION. Discussing with other beliefs. Not trying to sway, not trying to change the other's minds. Just having discussion for pure enlightenment.



No one's shoving anyone's beliefs down anyone's throats. Again, this is a DISCUSSION. So of course you'll discuss you're beliefs, then I'll discuss mine. Sorry mine aren't the same as yours and it seems I'm renouncing yours and shoving mine down your throat. But this coin is two sided my friend. If you can view me as shoving my views down your throat, then you're shoving your views down my throat as well.



How do you get that as preaching? Again, that's MY religious belief. And imagine that, this is a general RELIGION chat forum.

Cowboy, everyone is not going to agree with your claims or your beliefs. Therefore, they renounce them. By renouncing them they are saying that they (personally) do not accept them as true.

They have that right. They have that freedom. Please don't take that as an insult to you. If you are looking for someone to support your claims and agree with you, you may not find that here.

The only other reason you continue to make claims and statements is that you are hoping a non-believer will be convinced to believe them.

Everyone has pretty much heard and they understand how you believe. Repeating it over and over will not gain believers. You have to talk to people where they are, but as Abra said, you simply talk AT them by repeating your claims and beliefs over and over.

Do you understand the difference? Do you actually listen to why a person has renounced your claims? Do you ever speak to them and their reasoning? Mostly it looks like you just state your claims but you do not offer anyone any real reason to listen or consider them.

You are a very nice person, and very young. I am hoping and wishing that you are happy in your life and in your chosen path. You will make a kind preacher. But you need to listen to others in order to communicate with them rather than preach AT them.

The age is gone where people are just going to believe your claims without reasoning and communication. Everyone understands God in their own way. You have to learn how to approach that.


To renounce:

1. to give up or put aside voluntarily: to renounce worldly pleasures.
2. to give up by formal declaration: to renounce a claim.
3. to repudiate; disown: to renounce one's son.

To repudiate:  

1.to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2.to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3.to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4.to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5.to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.

The quoted statement you quoted was directly in response to



-----------------



Not true. Again this is a RELIGION CHAT forum. This is where people come to chat about RELIGION. If one doesn't wish to believe in my beliefs, that is all fine and dandy. We talk and move on. It is not me taking it so personal.



LoL, why is it seen as "preaching" when a person "discusses" their religious beliefs? Why is it not seen as "preaching" when someone else tells their beliefs? The coin has got to be two sided or it won't work. I'm discussing, not preaching.

Belittle and degrade?!?!

Kinda like this statement?



This is known as "projection" by most evolved primates. Don't worry though...

"I forgive you, for I fully understand that you know not what you do. You're obviously totally oblivious to what you are doing. I don't doubt that for one second. "

Cowboy,

In a very real way, you and I aren't even in the same cerebral universe. Our perceptions of reality are so drastically different that it may very well be impossible for us to communicate ever.

You speak of "beliefs". I have no "beliefs" like you do. What you think of as my "beliefs" are more along the line of how Jeanniebean thinks. I only believe the obvious. The things that cannot be denied. For example, I AM. I believe that I AM. I experience existence and so I believe that I am having the experience.

I can even take that a bit further and speak about having a "belief" in the various things that I actually "experience", such as physical reality, gravity, etc.

Does this mean that I jump to predetermined conclusions about the actual "cause" of those experiences? No it does not. But I can "speculate" on what might be going on based on my absolute truth of actual "experience". This line of thinking, along with logic, reason, analysis, and evidence, leads to the scientific method of inquiry which is, to date, the most productive method of inquiry ever imagined by humankind. The fruits of this method of inquiry have indeed been "proven" via the very same "experiences" which is all we can ever actually know to be true with absolute certainty. (i.e. I AM, because I experience being, therefore my experience of being is what I AM)

That is the only "TRUTH" that we can ever be sure of.

I do not "believe" anything beyond that. However, I do have weighted plausibility arguments for things beyond that based on what I can indeed "experience".

You on the other hand live in a totally different cerebral universe. You "believe" in things on pure faith that you can't possible know, or even experience for that matter. Moreover, you try to sell you untenable "faith" to other people and attempt to claim that you faith = "TRUTH". When in fact, it doesn't. Or to put that in better terms, "If it does, it's purely by random chance".

Thus you hold out the notion that everything is merely based on FAITH alone, because that's how YOU THINK.

That my friend, does not fit into my world picture at all. My actual "beliefs" are not based on "faith" at all (as you continually suggest), but rather they are based on my direct experience. (i.e. I AM, and I know that I AM, because I experience).

Thus my experiences are directly related to the only TRUTH that I can indeed know: I AM.

However, what you keep referring to as "Your Truths" have absolutely no basis in anything but pure faith on your part. You may as well have pure faith in the story of Santa Claus, as to have pure faith in the story of Jesus. Neither of these stories are within the realm of your direct experience.

Thus to investigate these stories and weigh their plausibility you have no choice but to resort to logic, reason, analysis, and evidence. Placing pure faith in them for no other reason than because you'd like to does not equate to "truth". All that amounts to is a "whim" on your part.

However, when you speak of your "beliefs" in these stories you demand that logic, reason, analysis, and evidence have no place and that everything must be reduced to a matter of "pure faith only".

I guess it's that single point right there that I totally disagree with. Our difference in views on religion is a moot point. The real difference between our views is that I recognize the value of logic, reason, analysis, and evidence, and you do not.

You're under the misguided notion that everything is a equally matter of pure faith.

Thus from your point of view, you tend to think that anyone can supposedly "believe" in your religion because, from your point of view all that's required is that they simply place pure faith in your religion thus 'believe it'.

You don't seem to understand how logic, reason, analysis, and evidence actually holds value to other people who recognize the core of their essence.

You really need to consider Jeanniebean's foundational TRUTH, of "I AM".

You can only move forward from there. And moving forward from there requires logic, reason, analysis, and evidence, the very things that you're asking everyone else to toss aside as being irrelevant to what you see as faith. You place all your eggs in the basket of faith, a faith that could indeed be totally misplaced.

Suggesting that everything can base (or should base) everything on "pure faith" only serves to display your total misunderstanding of your true essence.

In fact, as I've clearly demonstrated before, your approach to this holds no value whatsoever.

~~~~~~~~~

Here's a very sincere question for you Cowboy:

If pure faith is all we can use to make a choice (as you suggest), then which of the following should we place our faith in?

1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster
2. Christianity

If you suggest that we should place our faith in one of these over the other, then please explain your reasoning why one is more favorable in terms of pure faith than the other?

Oh but wait!

If you give us reasons you've instantly abandoned your original stance that everything is based solely on faith and you have now moved into the realm of logic, reason, analysis, and evidence!

~~~~~~~~~~~

So the bottom line Cowboy, is that your faith based approach to religion (or life in general) has no merit.

If you are living on faith alone, then you have absolutely no reason to choose to believe in Christianity over the Flying Spaghetti monster.

So your faith-based approach to life has not rhyme or reason.

It can't be justified or 'argued for' without giving reasons.

But as soon as you start giving reasons you're right back in the world of logic, reason, analysis, and evidence.

So you're faith-based approach to life is simply untenable.

It has no merit beyond your own personal choice to live that way.

In fact, that's precisely all that faith can be.

i respect your devotion, cowboy... it takes a lot of effort to be that devoted... and i don't think you belittle people either... i do wonder how in this day and age with everything we know, how you can be so devoted to something (to me) that has no merit or substance... but you are who you are, and that what makes the world interesting....

Because preaching is not a discussion. It is a sermon and it utilizes the reading, posting, and repeating of scripture. When you learn the difference your "discussions" will change. That is when you will begin to actually listen to something besides your own thoughts and beliefs.

No one is preaching. It is not a sermon.

If we were "discussing" the facts of the say moon. We would use various "books" to get our knowledge from. For YOU nor me have ever been to the moon, so the only knowledge we have of the moon is from books. So with that, we would use books to back up what we say. If we were to discuss say atomic matter. We would use books and quote from them for we ourselves do not have the direct knowledge of atomic matter. So while discussing religion, using scriptures is nothing outside the ordinary of a discussion.

You only see it as "preaching" cause it's religious and you do not believe in this particular religion if any at all. There is no preaching going on, just merely discussing various things associated with religion.

Thank you mightymoe. This is why I come here. To just have civil discussion like this. Not particularly one trying to "prove" to the other. Just merely discussing our beliefs, weather they are similar or different. Doesn't matter, it's just the discussion that is nice.