100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Christ without Christianity | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Cowboy, just because you don't direct your statements at an individual by name does not mean that you are not talking to the reader of your claim. Especially when you are having a conversation back and forth with a particular person or persons in a forum. When you make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God and anyone who does not accept that is "rejecting" God you are talking to anyone and everyone. That you don't call them by name does not protect you from the suggestion that you are indeed "preaching." We pretty much already KNOW what you believe and we do not accept your premises or conclusions and yet you still speak as if you are stating accepted facts. Your "facts" have not been accepted. Abra does not do this. Abra does not preach his religion to you or anyone. But you do. I find it very peculiar that you still don't realize the difference. Cowboy, just because you don't direct your statements at an individual by name does not mean that you are not talking to the reader of your claim. Especially when you are having a conversation back and forth with a particular person or persons in a forum. When you make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God and anyone who does not accept that is "rejecting" God you are talking to anyone and everyone. That you don't call them by name does not protect you from the suggestion that you are indeed "preaching." Jeanie, yes it does. If I do not do as such, I am not speaking specifically to the person. I am speaking to the forum in itself. I express my beliefs on such matters. That is what this forum is for, expressing and discussing one's beliefs of their religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: All religious beliefs do this more or less. You see your spiritual view as the only "true" spiritual view. With saying that, you are saying all other beliefs are false. So with saying that, you are saying the same thing. No harm done, no foul play. Just this is what you believe, no hatred received, nothing. Just two people with difference of opinions and beliefs. Why are you lying Cowboy? And bearing false witness against another? I have never said anything remotely like what you've just posted here, nor do I even believe that way. If you're going to make up outright lies about me then I'm done conversing with you. Does your religion teach you to lie like this? I never said that I see my spiritual views as the "only true spiritual view", nor do I even remotely feel that way about my spiritual views. You've fabricated that lie entirely on your own. I do not think the way you claim here at all. Not even remotely. And I see no reason to converse with you based on totally fabricated lies like this. Pardon me Abra, my apologies. Wasn't lying, was merely mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: All religious beliefs do this more or less. You see your spiritual view as the only "true" spiritual view. With saying that, you are saying all other beliefs are false. So with saying that, you are saying the same thing. No harm done, no foul play. Just this is what you believe, no hatred received, nothing. Just two people with difference of opinions and beliefs. Why are you lying Cowboy? And bearing false witness against another? I have never said anything remotely like what you've just posted here, nor do I even believe that way. If you're going to make up outright lies about me then I'm done conversing with you. Does your religion teach you to lie like this? I never said that I see my spiritual views as the "only true spiritual view", nor do I even remotely feel that way about my spiritual views. You've fabricated that lie entirely on your own. I do not think the way you claim here at all. Not even remotely. And I see no reason to converse with you based on totally fabricated lies like this. Pardon me Abra, my apologies. Wasn't lying, was merely mistaken. Apology accepted. However, if you're going to converse with someone in an argumentative way you need to start paying closer attention to their position on things. Cowboy wrote: Jeanie, yes it does. If I do not do as such, I am not speaking specifically to the person. I am speaking to the forum in itself. I express my beliefs on such matters. That is what this forum is for, expressing and discussing one's beliefs of their religious beliefs. You can rest assured that everyone understands what you believe. You have a very orthodox fundamentalist view of Christianity. You believe that all men are sinners, all are in need of salvation, Jesus is "The Christ",the sacrificial lamb of God, who was sent by God via a virgin birth to make salvation possible for mortal men. It is your firm belief that no one can "get to God" without acknowledging Jesus as Lord, accepting him as their "savior" and obeying his commands and directives. Which ultimately means that they must also accept that the entire biblical cannon is the "Word of God" which you have also expressed as a major part of your belief. ~~~~~~ In addition to your fundamental belief, you also vehemently argue against alternative interpretations of the biblical writings that might in any way conflict with your hardcore beliefs. As an example, I have pointed out that even with those scriptures Jesus is attributed with having said that he did not come for the righteous, but for the sinners. And that the righteous have no need for a spiritual doctor. I hold that this implies that Jesus was not supporting the idea that all men are sinners, or that all men would need to be 'saved' by him. He only came for 'sinners' not to help healthy righteous people who can obviously take care of themselves. You are extremely argumentative against any interpretations along these lines. By why? Why do you feel that you need to argue with other people about their interpretation of these ancient scriptures? Religious Insult and Injury Moreover, if you are going to be strongly "in the face" of others venomously arguing for you hardcore fundamentalist interpretations of these scriptures, where does that leave you with being able to claim insult and injury just because they hold alternative views? After all, if you consider it to be insult and injury to you because other people don't agree with your interpretations of ancient stories, then surely it must also be insult and injury to them when you do the same to them? How could it not be?  If I tell you that from my perspective, my understandings of these scriptures is that Jesus clearly stated that he will judge no one for not believing in him or his words, and that he only came for sinners, thus righteous people have no need to seek salvation. Why would you argue with me about my beliefs? More to the point, if you do argue with me about this, why is it that YOU should consider that argument to be insulting and injurious to YOU, yet not insulting and injurious to me? We simply have different beliefs and views on what some ancient stories have to say. It would be utterly foolish for either of us to claim insult and injury simply because someone else has a different interpretation. Or even if they hold entirely different views altogether. If I tell you that from my perspective the entire Old Testament appears to be nothing more than Greek-like fables. Jesus appears to have been a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. And the New Testament appears to me to be a total fabrication of superstitious men who had an agenda to support specific superstitious rumors: Why should you consider that to be insult and injury to your beliefs? Your claim that just because someone else holds different beliefs and views from yours that this somehow equates to "bashing" your religion is utter nonsense. If I believe that the Old Testament is fables, and that Jesus was a mortal man, and that the New Testament is outrageous exaggerated superstitions, and you DEMAND that I'm wrong about that, then are YOU not "bashing" my beliefs? This claim to insult and injury just because other people don't believe the things you believe has no grounds at all. And this is especially true if you continually harp at them that they need to believe like you lest some almighty God will hurt them or kill them. I'm truly sorry that you have been convinced to believe in such a threatening picture of a god. But if that's your belief, so be it. There's no need to try to ram that belief down the throats of others and scream insult and injury when they give you reasons in return for why they feel that such a belief is totally unacceptable from there perspective. If you are insulted by people giving reasons why they don't believe in your way of thinking, then the solution for you is extremely simple. Just quit trying to convince them of your beliefs, and you will no longer need to hear why they don't believe like you. What could be easier Cowboy?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, just because you don't direct your statements at an individual by name does not mean that you are not talking to the reader of your claim. Especially when you are having a conversation back and forth with a particular person or persons in a forum. When you make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God and anyone who does not accept that is "rejecting" God you are talking to anyone and everyone. That you don't call them by name does not protect you from the suggestion that you are indeed "preaching." We pretty much already KNOW what you believe and we do not accept your premises or conclusions and yet you still speak as if you are stating accepted facts. Your "facts" have not been accepted. Abra does not do this. Abra does not preach his religion to you or anyone. But you do. I find it very peculiar that you still don't realize the difference. Cowboy, just because you don't direct your statements at an individual by name does not mean that you are not talking to the reader of your claim. Especially when you are having a conversation back and forth with a particular person or persons in a forum. When you make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God and anyone who does not accept that is "rejecting" God you are talking to anyone and everyone. That you don't call them by name does not protect you from the suggestion that you are indeed "preaching." Jeanie, yes it does. If I do not do as such, I am not speaking specifically to the person. I am speaking to the forum in itself. I express my beliefs on such matters. That is what this forum is for, expressing and discussing one's beliefs of their religious beliefs. You cannot speak to a forum and pretend that you are not speaking to the people participating in that forum. A "forum" is not a conscious entity. It does not speak or listen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: All religious beliefs do this more or less. You see your spiritual view as the only "true" spiritual view. With saying that, you are saying all other beliefs are false. So with saying that, you are saying the same thing. No harm done, no foul play. Just this is what you believe, no hatred received, nothing. Just two people with difference of opinions and beliefs. Why are you lying Cowboy? And bearing false witness against another? I have never said anything remotely like what you've just posted here, nor do I even believe that way. If you're going to make up outright lies about me then I'm done conversing with you. Does your religion teach you to lie like this? I never said that I see my spiritual views as the "only true spiritual view", nor do I even remotely feel that way about my spiritual views. You've fabricated that lie entirely on your own. I do not think the way you claim here at all. Not even remotely. And I see no reason to converse with you based on totally fabricated lies like this. Pardon me Abra, my apologies. Wasn't lying, was merely mistaken. Apology accepted. However, if you're going to converse with someone in an argumentative way you need to start paying closer attention to their position on things. Cowboy wrote: Jeanie, yes it does. If I do not do as such, I am not speaking specifically to the person. I am speaking to the forum in itself. I express my beliefs on such matters. That is what this forum is for, expressing and discussing one's beliefs of their religious beliefs. You can rest assured that everyone understands what you believe. You have a very orthodox fundamentalist view of Christianity. You believe that all men are sinners, all are in need of salvation, Jesus is "The Christ",the sacrificial lamb of God, who was sent by God via a virgin birth to make salvation possible for mortal men. It is your firm belief that no one can "get to God" without acknowledging Jesus as Lord, accepting him as their "savior" and obeying his commands and directives. Which ultimately means that they must also accept that the entire biblical cannon is the "Word of God" which you have also expressed as a major part of your belief. ~~~~~~ In addition to your fundamental belief, you also vehemently argue against alternative interpretations of the biblical writings that might in any way conflict with your hardcore beliefs. As an example, I have pointed out that even with those scriptures Jesus is attributed with having said that he did not come for the righteous, but for the sinners. And that the righteous have no need for a spiritual doctor. I hold that this implies that Jesus was not supporting the idea that all men are sinners, or that all men would need to be 'saved' by him. He only came for 'sinners' not to help healthy righteous people who can obviously take care of themselves. You are extremely argumentative against any interpretations along these lines. By why? Why do you feel that you need to argue with other people about their interpretation of these ancient scriptures? Religious Insult and Injury Moreover, if you are going to be strongly "in the face" of others venomously arguing for you hardcore fundamentalist interpretations of these scriptures, where does that leave you with being able to claim insult and injury just because they hold alternative views? After all, if you consider it to be insult and injury to you because other people don't agree with your interpretations of ancient stories, then surely it must also be insult and injury to them when you do the same to them? How could it not be? If I tell you that from my perspective, my understandings of these scriptures is that Jesus clearly stated that he will judge no one for not believing in him or his words, and that he only came for sinners, thus righteous people have no need to seek salvation. Why would you argue with me about my beliefs? More to the point, if you do argue with me about this, why is it that YOU should consider that argument to be insulting and injurious to YOU, yet not insulting and injurious to me? We simply have different beliefs and views on what some ancient stories have to say. It would be utterly foolish for either of us to claim insult and injury simply because someone else has a different interpretation. Or even if they hold entirely different views altogether. If I tell you that from my perspective the entire Old Testament appears to be nothing more than Greek-like fables. Jesus appears to have been a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. And the New Testament appears to me to be a total fabrication of superstitious men who had an agenda to support specific superstitious rumors: Why should you consider that to be insult and injury to your beliefs? Your claim that just because someone else holds different beliefs and views from yours that this somehow equates to "bashing" your religion is utter nonsense. If I believe that the Old Testament is fables, and that Jesus was a mortal man, and that the New Testament is outrageous exaggerated superstitions, and you DEMAND that I'm wrong about that, then are YOU not "bashing" my beliefs? This claim to insult and injury just because other people don't believe the things you believe has no grounds at all. And this is especially true if you continually harp at them that they need to believe like you lest some almighty God will hurt them or kill them. I'm truly sorry that you have been convinced to believe in such a threatening picture of a god. But if that's your belief, so be it. There's no need to try to ram that belief down the throats of others and scream insult and injury when they give you reasons in return for why they feel that such a belief is totally unacceptable from there perspective. If you are insulted by people giving reasons why they don't believe in your way of thinking, then the solution for you is extremely simple. Just quit trying to convince them of your beliefs, and you will no longer need to hear why they don't believe like you. What could be easier Cowboy? Abbra, In addition to your fundamental belief, you also vehemently argue against alternative interpretations of the biblical writings that might in any way conflict with your hardcore beliefs. I do not argue. I respond to a statement and it may be contrary to what they believe. This is not arguing, this is disagreeing. When this happens, I wished the people would supply the knowledge of why they believe as such, then in turn I could respond why I believe as such. Then we could possibly find a mutual agreement and see the errors in either our thinking or the error in the other's. Again, not arguing. Only you are here to do that my friend. As an example, I have pointed out that even with those scriptures Jesus is attributed with having said that he did not come for the righteous, but for the sinners. And that the righteous have no need for a spiritual doctor. You have done no such thing. You've showed where Jesus said he has come for the lost, or in your terms "the ones in need for a spiritual doctor". But you will not find one verse that says he did not come for the righteous. Because with Christ, no one is righteous. Moreover, if you are going to be strongly "in the face" of others venomously arguing for you hardcore fundamentalist interpretations of these scriptures, where does that leave you with being able to claim insult and injury just because they hold alternative views? I like it when I come across someone that interprets the verse(s) differently then I do. Gives me a reason to restudy those particular verses and see where I might have an error in my knowledge. If I tell you that from my perspective, my understandings of these scriptures is that Jesus clearly stated that he will judge no one for not believing in him or his words, and that he only came for sinners, thus righteous people have no need to seek salvation. He doesn't have to "judge" them. Their fate is already set in stone. John 12:48 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. And the word he has spoken are as follows Matthew 10:32-33 32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. More to the point, if you do argue with me about this, why is it that YOU should consider that argument to be insulting and injurious to YOU, yet not insulting and injurious to me? It's not the arguing, or the disagreeing that is insultive. It is what you say about the belief. For instance, a little example. Person A, yeah man I don't believe in Jesus being the Christ. It just doesn't strike me as being authentic. Person B, Nah I don't believe in that baloney. I see no reason to put my faith in a made up fairy tail. You are more along the lines of person B. Yes it is a bit exaggerated in the example, but nevertheless your form of discussing falls more in line with that, then person A. Your claim that just because someone else holds different beliefs and views from yours that this somehow equates to "bashing" your religion is utter nonsense. Why lie? I never made such an accusation or even insinuated it. And this is especially true if you continually harp at them that they need to believe like you lest some almighty God will hurt them or kill them. I harp at no one. I speak directly usually to no one. I've maybe only ever ONCE specifically discussed with YOU. I have discussed and replied to the things you say, yes. But this is only in response to the words you say, not directly to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy, just because you don't direct your statements at an individual by name does not mean that you are not talking to the reader of your claim. Especially when you are having a conversation back and forth with a particular person or persons in a forum. When you make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God and anyone who does not accept that is "rejecting" God you are talking to anyone and everyone. That you don't call them by name does not protect you from the suggestion that you are indeed "preaching." We pretty much already KNOW what you believe and we do not accept your premises or conclusions and yet you still speak as if you are stating accepted facts. Your "facts" have not been accepted. Abra does not do this. Abra does not preach his religion to you or anyone. But you do. I find it very peculiar that you still don't realize the difference. Cowboy, just because you don't direct your statements at an individual by name does not mean that you are not talking to the reader of your claim. Especially when you are having a conversation back and forth with a particular person or persons in a forum. When you make the claim that Jesus is the only way to God and anyone who does not accept that is "rejecting" God you are talking to anyone and everyone. That you don't call them by name does not protect you from the suggestion that you are indeed "preaching." Jeanie, yes it does. If I do not do as such, I am not speaking specifically to the person. I am speaking to the forum in itself. I express my beliefs on such matters. That is what this forum is for, expressing and discussing one's beliefs of their religious beliefs. You cannot speak to a forum and pretend that you are not speaking to the people participating in that forum. A "forum" is not a conscious entity. It does not speak or listen. Sure you can. That is what a forum is for. It's for the community to make responses and replies. It's not a conversation directly between two people. A forum is a conscious entity, it is made up of everyone that speaks in this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/09/11 12:13 PM
|
|
So you do not take responsibility for your claims because you feel that you are speaking to a group rather than an individual and that absolves you of any responsibility for your claims?
What do you do, imagine that dozens of people are reading your posts and agreeing with your claims? That is a cop out. You need to take responsibility for what you say to a group of people (imagined or otherwise) and especially when some of them are taking the time to respond to your claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether one believes in the divinity of Jesus, believes he was an actual historical figure, an invented character, a metaphor for the Sun ("dying" at the winter solstice, "reborn", etc.), or, as I believe, a combo of all of the above - can we all agree that the message in the myth is good? Man has long written moral stories and invented characters to be role models. One can learn a lot from Aesop's fables; you don't have to believe an actual tortoise and hare had a race (LOL) to extract a message from the tale. Kids today know Harry Potter is an invention but that doesn't stop him being a decent role model. This is the primary thrust of deism. A reasonable compromise for those who are interested in philosophy moreso than theology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you do not take responsibility for your claims because you feel that you are speaking to a group rather than an individual and that absolves you of any responsibility for your claims? What do you do, imagine that dozens of people are reading your posts and agreeing with your claims? That is a cop out. You need to take responsibility for what you say to a group of people (imagined or otherwise) and especially when some of them are taking the time to respond to your claims. What are you talking about? I may post a verse that says everyone falls short of the glory of God to one of someone's posts, this is not directed specifically at them insinuating they are a sinner in need of repentance. I may say Jesus is the only way to Heaven, But that is MY belief. That is not claiming all other beliefs are fairy tails or even insinuating it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 11/09/11 01:40 PM
|
|
So you do not take responsibility for your claims because you feel that you are speaking to a group rather than an individual and that absolves you of any responsibility for your claims? What do you do, imagine that dozens of people are reading your posts and agreeing with your claims? That is a cop out. You need to take responsibility for what you say to a group of people (imagined or otherwise) and especially when some of them are taking the time to respond to your claims. What are you talking about? I may post a verse that says everyone falls short of the glory of God to one of someone's posts, this is not directed specifically at them insinuating they are a sinner in need of repentance. I may say Jesus is the only way to Heaven, But that is MY belief. That is not claiming all other beliefs are fairy tails or even insinuating it. When you say "everyone" it includes.... guess what? ...EVERYONE. When you say that Jesus is the only way to Heaven... guess what? Its is just your opinion. That you believe that does not bother me because I don't believe it in the slightest so I don't consider it to have anything at all to do with me. People speak up because some think that silence means that they agree with what you claim. We wouldn't want you to think that.  You of course can believe what ever you want. We simply don't agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you do not take responsibility for your claims because you feel that you are speaking to a group rather than an individual and that absolves you of any responsibility for your claims? What do you do, imagine that dozens of people are reading your posts and agreeing with your claims? That is a cop out. You need to take responsibility for what you say to a group of people (imagined or otherwise) and especially when some of them are taking the time to respond to your claims. What are you talking about? I may post a verse that says everyone falls short of the glory of God to one of someone's posts, this is not directed specifically at them insinuating they are a sinner in need of repentance. I may say Jesus is the only way to Heaven, But that is MY belief. That is not claiming all other beliefs are fairy tails or even insinuating it. When you say "everyone" it includes.... guess what? ...EVERYONE. When you say that Jesus is the only way to Heaven... guess what? Its is just your opinion. That you believe that does not bother me because I don't believe it in the slightest so I don't consider it to have anything at all to do with me. People speak up because some think that silence means that they agree with what you claim. We wouldn't want you to think that. My entire point is that this is a forum for sharing spiritual belief/religion beliefs. I state everyone is a sinner, it is not an insult on anyone, is just a religious belief. I would be included in that everyone as well. It is once again, not directed specifically at another person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is pretty common (very common) knowledge that Christians believe that everyone is a sinner.
That's really nothing new. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is pretty common (very common) knowledge that Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. That's really nothing new. Didn't say it was. Was just an example for this particular discussion. That same principle applies to all religious/spiritual discussions that go on in this forum. And again, it is not directed at that specific person unless their name starts it. Example - Jeanie, Jesus is the only path to Heaven. I know your response, is again just an example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: I do not argue. I respond to a statement and it may be contrary to what they believe. This is not arguing, this is disagreeing. When this happens, I wished the people would supply the knowledge of why they believe as such, then in turn I could respond why I believe as such. Then we could possibly find a mutual agreement and see the errors in either our thinking or the error in the other's. Again, not arguing. Only you are here to do that my friend. That is absolute utter baloney Cowboy. You aren't pulling the wool over anyone's eyes except perhaps your very own self. When we have different views on religious scriptures, beliefs and interpretations, it's only you who continually demand that we seek a "mutual agreement" and see the "errors" in someone's views. I do not seek your approval or agreement on any religious scriptures or views. I have absolutely no need for your approval, agreement, or consensus about anything. If you want to believe that you need to be "saved" from a God who would otherwise hurt you MORE POWER TO YOU! How many times do I need to say that? I don't believe that I need to be "saved" from a divine holy being in the first place. Sorry if that offends you. But I certainly don't need your approval, consensus, or mutual agreement on anything.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic of this thread is:
Christ without Christianity I pointed out quite early on that it should have been entitled: Jesus without Christianity Because the very claim that Jesus was "The Christ" is basically what Christianity is all about. So if we want to consider Jesus without Christianity, then there's no longer any need to retain that title of "Christ". Jesus without Christianity requires no virgin birth, no resurrection after death. No need to believe that the authors who wrote the New Testament were "divinely inspired" or that their writings are anything more than superstitious rumors about Jesus. ~~~~ Not only have I considered this scenario, but I'm also personally convinced that this is indeed far more likely to be the reality of history. Some would say that this reduces Jesus from the status of being a demigod to the status of being a mere mortal man. But for me, it actually elevates the stories from being nothing more than superstitious myths and rumors to being a quite important and serious historical and social event. This scenario more is more in line with my "beliefs" in Jesus. I also personally like this view of Jesus far better than the Christian picture. In this view there is no need to believe in a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices. There is no need to believe that the Old Testament was an actual description of the commandments or directives of any God. There is also no need to give any merit to the writings of Paul. And there isn't even any need to give verbatim merit to the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. Once I view Jesus as a mortal man, I look at the New Testament scriptures in a whole new light to see if I can make out what Jesus himself might have actually been trying to accomplish and teach. In that view of Jesus, I like what I see. I see someone who has moral values very much akin to mine. I see someone who spoke out against religious hypocrisy, very much as I do. I see someone with whom I can identify very closely on a very deep psychic level. I much prefer the view of Jesus without Christianity and if a religion could be built upon that foundation, I'd be all for it. However, it is also my own personal view, that such a religion already exists. It's called Buddhism. Not so much the modern form of Buddhisms, such as Zen Buddhism, but more closely aligned with more spiritual forms of Buddhism such as Mahayana Buddhism, or even modern day Tibetan Buddhism practiced by the Dalia Lama. I personally feel that these are closer to the teachings of Jesus than Christianity is. Just my views on the topic suggested.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note to MorningSong: I have a really great song in my mind that I've been singing all day as I was doing carpentry work this morning. Getting it out into the real world is a whole other story. Especially if I wanted it to sound like it does in my head. Anyway, I'm working on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this discussion
I'm slowly getting through all posts, sorry I don't have the time to address every point.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ApertureScience
on
Wed 11/09/11 04:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this discussion I'm slowly getting through all posts, sorry I don't have the time to address every point. Well, unfortunately the discussion got side-tracked into a proselytizing agenda for supporting the "Christ" of "Christianity". Which is pretty much the way things always go around here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether one believes in the divinity of Jesus, believes he was an actual historical figure, an invented character, a metaphor for the Sun ("dying" at the winter solstice, "reborn", etc.), or, as I believe, a combo of all of the above - can we all agree that the message in the myth is good? Man has long written moral stories and invented characters to be role models. One can learn a lot from Aesop's fables; you don't have to believe an actual tortoise and hare had a race (LOL) to extract a message from the tale. Kids today know Harry Potter is an invention but that doesn't stop him being a decent role model. No Race... HUh Well i had one when i was small and the Tortuse won.. The stupid rabbit just sat thier sniffing and chewing on some grass.. Tortuse 1 Rabbit 0. |
|
|
|
|
