NationStates Jolt Archive

What a wonderful question. Lets keep our replies to ones with intelligence. No one cares if you say something without proof.\

PS You do not have to answer the poll to post a thread, dummy.

wasn't he a member of a boyband or something? or was he an actor? The name rings a bell but I can't quite put a face to it. *ponders*

You forgot two more options: "Prophet" (different to moral teacher), and "Didn't Exist". I go for Son of God, btw.

The lack of options is really quite disturbing. I must make a thread myself in which I ask people if they think I am the son of god or a moral teacher. Don't you understand the myriad of oppinions people have on the issue? You can't get replies with intelligence until you ask a question with inteligence.

He could of just been a dude with one hell of an ego..lol :p

You dumb people do not have to answer the poll to post a thread.

http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~rutten/astronomershots/tatranska2004/Maria-Jesus-Martinez-Gonzalez.jpg

He was a hippie who was almost 2000 years too early to follow the Gratefull Dead around and thereby give purpose to his constant wandering and begging.

What is a "Jesus Christ"?

He was a hippie who was almost 2000 years to early to follow the Gratefull Dead around and thereby give purpose to his constant wandering and begging.

he was the lead singer wasn't he??

Neither
A man in a story that was SUPPOSED to be a moral teacher

He may or may not have existed … but I feel more likely a moral teacher who got his account blown out of proportion

he was the lead singer wasn't he??
No, Santa Claus was the lead singer of the Gratefull Dead.

http://www.in-the-spirit.com/images/jg4_blk.jpg

http://www.walldrawn.com/holidays/santachair.jpg

No, Santa Claus was the lead singer of the Gratefull Dead.

http://www.in-the-spirit.com/images/jg4_blk.jpg

http://www.walldrawn.com/holidays/santachair.jpg

oh yeah... i tend to get confused between the two, cause they have the same birthday :p .....

Jesus Christ was a man who started a religion. He wasn't the Son of God or anything. A lot of his teachings were really weak though.

Jesus Christ was a man who started a religion. He wasn't the Son of God or anything. A lot of his teachings were really weak though. He didn't actually try to start a religion though. He attempted to alter the Jewish religion, which is why his earlier followers considered themselves Jews, and you still get "Jewish Christians" today.

He didn't actually try to start a religion though. He attempted to alter the Jewish religion, which is why his earlier followers considered themselves Jews, and you still get "Jewish Christians" today.
Oh yeah, I guess that's true.

Whoever he is, if he is alive, as the resurrection stories would have you believe, then I would want to know WHERE he is.

I got some questions for him. (and, NO, some regular human telling me what they THINK Jesus would answer is NOT good enough)

Whoever he is, if he is alive, as the resurrection stories would have you believe, then I would want to know WHERE he is.

I got some questions for him. (and, NO, some regular human telling me what they THINK Jesus would answer is NOT good enough) I'm a very irregular human. Does that work?

Anyway, like I said, he should be a xrespected as a moral teacher at the most, a historical figure at the least.

Anyway, like I said, he should be a xrespected as a moral teacher at the most, a historical figure at the least. If you believe that he claimed to his disciples to be God incarnate, then he's either indeed the Son of God or grossly arrogant.

Jesus is mostly myth in my opinion.

You forgot two more options: "Prophet" (different to moral teacher), and "Didn't Exist". I go for Son of God, btw.

Time Magazine in their cover story from December 18, 1995 noting what had and had not been proven from the bible noted that there was a historical record from Roman records showing a 'Jesus of Nazareth' living at the approx. time Jesus Christ in the bible is suppose to have lived.

Jesus is the Son of God born by the Virgin Mary

I'm a very irregular human. Does that work?

Not unless you are irregular enough you aren't hindered by those things that get in the way of human understanding, (such as the illusion of self-importance, the perception of the Time/Space Continuum as linear and uni-directional, and the belief that Existence is separate and finite.)

most of us are stuck in the Time/Space mud.

Not unless you are irregular enough you aren't hindered by those things that get in the way of human understanding, (such as the illusion of self-importance, the perception of the Time/Space Continuum as linear and uni-directional, and the belief that Existence is separate and finite.

most of us are stuck in the Time/Space mud. Try calling the Doctor. That Doctor.

Try calling the Doctor. That Doctor.

Would HE know??

;) :D

If you believe that he claimed to his disciples to be God incarnate, then he's either indeed the Son of God or grossly arrogant.Or, alternatively, that he was trying to make the point that Every Man is also the son of God.

You forgot two more options: "Prophet" (different to moral teacher), and "Didn't Exist". I go for Son of God, btw.
Hasn't it already been proven that Jesus Christ did exist but his role in religion is still questionable?

Jesus is the Son of God born by the Virgin Mary

Which just goes to prove there are morons who will believe just about anything.

We don't need a fairy story anymore - some of us have grown up.

The way you have worded the question, there can be only one proper answer: Jesus Christ is the mythic figure of the Son of God who dies for the salvation of Man.

Now, if you had asked who Jesus is, I would have chose the second response.

Which just goes to prove there are morons who will believe just about anything.

We don't need a fairy story anymore - some of us have grown up. Excuse me, one person told me I had a mental age of 40. (meaning grumpy and averse to fun, I suppose ;) )

I think he's just a nut(as in looney) who wanted a sack(a following of people to contain him)..

Jesus Christ was a man who started a religion. He wasn't the Son of God or anything. A lot of his teachings were really weak though.

In your opinion what about His teachings were weak? :confused:

In your opinion what about His teachings were weak? :confused: With a name like LaVeya, what do you think?

How about a poll option for BOTH????

All 2000+ year old books and religions are weak.. No proof or anything. Could be a society's mythology evolved into a religion.

Jesus was a traitor of the government (which were also the spiritual leaders) of the time. He was starting a revolution. For that he was killed.

I'm not saying his message wasn't good. I'm just saying he was no more than a human, idolized and martyrized.

He had a lot to say
He had a lot of nothing to say
We'll miss him
We'll miss him
We're gonna miss him
We're gonna miss him

So long
We wish you well
You told us how you weren't afraid to die
Well then, so long
Don't cry.
Or feel too down
Not all martyrs see divinity
But at least you tried

Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice that was strong and loud
We'll miss him
We'll miss him
Ranting and pointing his finger
At everything but his heart
We'll miss him
We'll miss him
We're gonna miss him
We're gonna miss him

No way to recall
What it was that you had said to me,
Like I care at all

But it was so loud
You sure could yell
You took a stand on every little thing
And so loud

Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice so strong and loud and I
Swallowed his façade 'cause I'm so
Eager to identify with
Someone above the ground,
Someone who seemed to feel the same,
Someone prepared to lead the way, with
Someone who would die for me

Will you? Will you now?
Would you die for me?
Don't you fucking lie

Don't you step out of line
Don't you step out of line
Don't you step out of line
Don't you fucking lie

You've claimed all this time that you would die for me
Why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?

You had a lot to say
You had a lot of nothing to say

Come down
Get off your fucking cross
We need the fucking space to nail the next fool martyr

To ascend you must die
You must be crucified
For our sins and our lies
Goodbye...

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ This is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

-C.S. Lewis

A lot of people don't know much about jesus christ now Jesus unlike what most people say is the Son of God who died on the Cross for our sins, Wow you people need to look into this more and Tim Smith his teachings were not weak okay i'm a firm believer in Christ if you really understood his teachings then you would not say there weak maybe you're a atheists

How can you call Him a traitor when He said, “give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and give unto God that which is Gods”?

*snip*

-C.S. Lewis
I take it Lewis was unfamiliar with mythology.

Jesus christ was a man who travelled the land
a hard working man and brave
he said to the rich give your goods to the poor
so they laid jesus christ in his grave

Uhhhh, both. My understanding of the Bible, Quran, Talmud and Qitabi Aqdas is that we are ALL the children of God. Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Baha'ullah et. al. were MANIFESTATIONS of God that spread the word and wisdom...very special beings, but still fundamnetaly human, like all of us. Definitely an amazing moral teacher. He actually practiced what he preached, which is a hell of lot more than can be said 99.99999% of contemprorary and historical, self-appointed Moral Teachers.

A lot of people don't know much about jesus christ now Jesus unlike what most people say is the Son of God who died on the Cross for our sins, Wow you people need to look into this more and Tim Smith his teachings were not weak okay i'm a firm believer in Christ if you really understood his teachings then you would not say there weak maybe you're a atheists

Your grammar needs work..

I know a lot aboot Jesus. I've gone(and am going to) Catholic school for 9 1/2 years now. So don't tell me what I know aboot or not.

In fact, my knowledge of Jesus has led me to believe that he is either an a) Cult-Gone-Global or a b)Fairy story blown out of proportion, by accident or on purpose.

A lot of people don't know much about jesus christ now Jesus unlike what most people say is the Son of God who died on the Cross for our sins, Wow you people need to look into this more and Tim Smith his teachings were not weak okay i'm a firm believer in Christ if you really understood his teachings then you would not say there weak maybe you're a atheists

:mad: I think you need to go back and read what I said before. I was asking what they thought was weak about His teachings. I never said His teachings were weak. So if you want to try me on my understanding of his teachings then feel free. But you cannot call me an atheist.

Jesus christ was a man who travelled the land
a hard working man and brave
he said to the rich give your goods to the poor
so they laid jesus christ in his grave

i think you're thinking of robin hood :p

Saying that jesus is the factual son of the factual christian god is like saying that Walker Texas Ranger is a brilliantly clever edge-of-your-seat action show in that it just makes you look like a douche.

Saying that jesus is the factual son of the factual christian god is like saying that Walker Texas Ranger is a brilliantly clever edge-of-your-seat action show in that it just makes you look crazy. I'll continue saying it then… it's not like I've got anything to lose. :)

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ This is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

-C.S. LewisI strongly refute Lewis's take on this, even though I think Mere Christianity was a reasonable take on the faith of his time.

First off, we are currently still skeptical as to the validity of accounts of the resurrection, which ultimately defines whether or not Jesus was Wrong completely about his faith in God. But Jesus undeniably had was a faith that God would pull him out of that scenario despite a potential uncertainty as to whether he could even go through with this. Saying that such behaviour is either taken from all-knowing Lordship or complete Insanity is denying the validity of Christianity's own sense of Faith in what Jesus did: it is either divinely inspired and hence irrefutable or it is utter madness. Neither of those stand, though Atheists would be more than happy to allow the latter on both Jesus and Christian counts.

So we add another couple of possibilities to the selection: Jesus was led to believe by society and personal experience what he did and just happened to turn out incorrect, or that he was himself guided by God, was not resurrected and therefore used, possibly against his own will.

Even if the resurrection was to be reality, however, all it symbolised was that some supernatural power felt that Jesus's message was good enough to divinely recognise. That has long been considered the liberal Christian interpretation of Jesus's resurrection; that it was, in effect, God's stamp of approval on his life and teaching. Arguably, Jesus would not have had to be completely right about everything for his message to have this effect; his claim to be the son of God may have been overlooked by God because of the profound truth of everything else he said.

Furthermore, there may even be some suggestion that Jesus interchanged his uses of Son of God and Son of Man to make the specific point that All Men are in part the Sons and Daughters of the spirit of creation. Looked at in context, it does not need to be specifically true that Jesus alone is part of a direct, biological lineage of the creator deity for his words to be correct.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the real God saw in the validity of Jesus's life a reason to indulge his claim of rebirth.

So, we have at least three other possibilities to add to the list. Jesus: Son of God, Stark Raving Mad Man, Publicity grabbing Liar, Victim of the Treachery of the Divine, Subject of the Ills of Human Society or Profound Moral Teacher who found favour with God, whatever God is.


Regardless of his theological position, I reckon his ethical teaching has validity worth keeping to. Therefore, primarily, the second option is the most important one, if not the only important one.

If Jesus was the son of god then so am I. And so are you.

He was a man with a great message. Perhaps more enlightened than was good for him, but a man nonetheless.

Tool! I love that song, Tribal Ecology!

And I agree with Kamsaki:
Or, alternatively, that he was trying to make the point that Every Man is also the son of God.

What was it.. John 10:32-34... where he was about to be stoned to death for deifying himself, and he reminded them that in their own laws, God decreed that they were gods as well.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ This is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

-C.S. Lewis
He could have been both a lunitic and a moral guide

Time Magazine in their cover story from December 18, 1995 noting what had and had not been proven from the bible noted that there was a historical record from Roman records showing a 'Jesus of Nazareth' living at the approx. time Jesus Christ in the bible is suppose to have lived.
That's amazing. Especially since Nazareth didn't even exist at the time.

Neither
A man in a story that was SUPPOSED to be a moral teacher

He may or may not have existed … but I feel more likely a moral teacher who got his account blown out of proportion

I agree, however... He was supposed to be a moral teacher. Well, if the guy didn't have good morals, ethics and the like, how can you expect his teachings to have lasted all this time??? He was a moral teacher, people did and still do to this day turn to him for comfort alone. Jesus gives hope to those who believe in him. Ditto for God. Worshipping and believing in God, an almighty power, gives people hope because believers think that He can solve their problems through prayer. So long as they believe, worship and obey the ten commandments (Which are commen sence wise, morral teachings!). Believers are reassured that miracles can happen, with hopes it will happen to them.

I voted "Moral Teacher" because of this.

Son of God, you say? Son as in offspring? - this, by the way, is why I detest Political Correctness- Meaning God, known as the "Holy Father", Jesus's Dad... okay... So God, is male. And The "Mother Virgin Mary" is Jesus's mom, correct? Jesus was created through Immaculate Conception, was he not? So I guess that makes Jesus the Son of God (And Mary).

Keeping these two points in mind, I guess He's both.

Jesus did not create the religion. People believed in God before him. What about the whole ordeal with Moses, and the Ten Commandments.... yaddayaddayadda..... that was all before the birth of Jesus, to my understanding.

Jesus's teachings were not weak, but very vague and metaphorical.

Keep in mind, with the Bible being written so long ago, and translated, revised etc.... its like a game of broken telephone. Although relevent even to today's society, His teachings need to be updated a little. But hey, don't fix something that isn't broken. You can't update a history book, right? Its history, its already happenned. We're just going to have to take the Bibles word for it, for we don't know enough to know any better!

You forgot two more options: "Prophet" (different to moral teacher), and "Didn't Exist". I go for Son of God, btw.

The historical jew who caused some agitations in palestine and happened to be put to death by romans has existed as likely as most historical personages we have heard of.

As for what his teachings were, we have possibly slighty less scientific evidence than we have of the ones of Socrates (another moral teacher who didn't write anything)

Personally, I believe in the Son of God option, anyway, until (seriously) disproved.

A lot of people don't know much about jesus christ now Jesus unlike what most people say is the Son of God who died on the Cross for our sins, Wow you people need to look into this more and Tim Smith his teachings were not weak okay i'm a firm believer in Christ if you really understood his teachings then you would not say there weak maybe you're a atheists

Maybe, but only maybe, you would make sense if you knew how to construct an English sentence.

Few, if any, of the teachings attributed to JC were new to him and most exist, in one form or another, in many religions.

It is a very sad reflection on our education system that you need to believe in a non-existant "god" to prop-up your life.

It is a very sad reflection on our education system that you need to believe in a non-existant "god" to prop-up your life. You mean you'd rather we were indoctrinated with atheism?

Or, alternatively, that he was trying to make the point that Every Man is also the son of God.

Bingo.
I'm Buddhist but I belive that had Siddartha Buddha and Jesus been around at the same time that they would be fast friends, for they both taught the same thing, that we are all connected and we are Sons of God and Buddhas. Jesus, like every wise sage thru out time, was persecuted.

A lot of people don't know much about jesus christ now Jesus unlike what most people say is the Son of God who died on the Cross for our sins, Wow you people need to look into this more and Tim Smith his teachings were not weak okay i'm a firm believer in Christ if you really understood his teachings then you would not say there weak maybe you're a atheists

dude, they have this great thing now. it's called puncutation. it allows people to understand what you write by breaking it up into piece, you should use it sometime

Bingo.
I'm Buddhist but I belive that had Siddartha Buddha and Jesus been around at the same time that they would be fast friends, for they both taught the same thing, that we are all connected and we are Sons of God and Buddhas. Jesus, like every wise sage thru out time, was persecuted.

Right on. :) The big sages out there were all dropping us the right sort of hints. I mean, look at how many cultures and religions have the Golden Rule, reworded over and over again...

You forgot two more options: "Prophet" (different to moral teacher), and "Didn't Exist". I go for Son of God, btw.

your right Jesus i the Son of God. the one who created the moon and the stars the planets including Earth and everything on it. :)

Bingo.
I'm Buddhist but I belive that had Siddartha Buddha and Jesus been around at the same time that they would be fast friends, for they both taught the same thing, that we are all connected and we are Sons of God and Buddhas. Jesus, like every wise sage thru out time, was persecuted.Absolutely. The two would have got on like a house on fire. Where they differed, however, was that I don't think Jesus actively preached Nirvana in the same way. Both agreed that the ultimate state of being was a oneness with God and Buddha, both agreed that the damaging state of self was to blame for our current separation, but where the Buddha believes that the way to enlightenment is to remove the self, Jesus would say that the way there is through refinement of it and use of it to suit others' needs and interests too. Therein is the possibly only real difference. Jesus still has hope that self can be a good thing as long as it is used with care. I think that's a reasonable approach, personally.

I take it Lewis was unfamiliar with mythology.

one of many links to a C.S. Lewis bio (http://www.factmonster.com/spot/narnia-lewis.html)
n 1925, after graduating with first-class honors in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English Literature, Lewis was elected to an important teaching post in English at Magdalen College, Oxford. He remained at Oxford for 29 years before becoming a professor of medieval and renaissance literature at Magdalene College, Cambridge, in 1955.

Guess as a dumb old professor at Cambridge out of Oxford, he must not have known what he was talking about (sarcasm button) :rolleyes:

I am sure, without reading all the posts, that someone already brought up his background.

Here are some choice quotes relating to the topic at hand:

"Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed."

--The Case for Christianity

"God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form...The perfect surrender and humiliation was undergone by Christ: perfect because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man."

--The Case for Christianity

dude, they have this great thing now. it's called puncutation. it allows people to understand what you write by breaking it up into piece, you should use it sometime
… says the person that did not use correct punctuation themselves lol.

Tool! I love that song, Tribal Ecology!

And I agree with Kamsaki:


What was it.. John 10:32-34... where he was about to be stoned to death for deifying himself, and he reminded them that in their own laws, God decreed that they were gods as well.

Actually, it was not in the Law, but in the Writings (Psalms), where God was being sarcastic and calling judges gods, because of their ability to order the death penalty, but God went on to say that those he called gods would "die like men."

We are not all sons of God in any meaningful way, certainly not as pertains to obtaining salvation.

Jesus repeatedly claimed to be God in the flesh, right there with them. That's why they kept trying to stone him. And that is what they convicted him of when they tried him. So if he is a really moral teacher, then how could he be so "arrogant" as to claim to be God, that is, Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament? C.S. Lewis pointed out that anyone making those claims could not be a great moral teacher, but would have to be either telling the truth, self-deceived/lunatic, or a liar. Those of us who follow him believe he was telling the truth. ;)

Guess as a dumb old professor at Cambridge out of Oxford, he must not have known what he was talking about (sarcasm button) :rolleyes: A university professor in physics in the 1950s might be outdone by an undergraduate student in physics in 2005. >_>

Anyway, credentials don't necessarily make a man irrefutable. I still disagree with Lewis's 3 L's idea, and I feel he reveals his underlying selfishness when he disregards moral teachings as unimportant compared to spiritual teachings. Then again, such were the ideas of his time, and they were good ones for the society he lived in. But we now live in a world where the selflessness of Gospel morality has been replaced by the self-promotion of post-Gospel Theology, and putting "Religion" first in our minds is no longer an appropriate response to the message of Jesus.

Actually, it was not in the Law, but in the Writings (Psalms), where God was being sarcastic and calling judges gods, because of their ability to order the death penalty, but God went on to say that those he called gods would "die like men."

We are not all sons of God in any meaningful way, certainly not as pertains to obtaining salvation.

Jesus repeatedly claimed to be God in the flesh, right there with them. That's why they kept trying to stone him. And that is what they convicted him of when they tried him. So if he is a really moral teacher, then how could he be so "arrogant" as to claim to be God, that is, Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament? C.S. Lewis pointed out that anyone making those claims could not be a great moral teacher, but would have to be either telling the truth, self-deceived/lunatic, or a liar. Those of us who follow him believe he was telling the truth. ;) Also, the disciples were depressed and hopeless after his death, yet something made them go out and start preaching joyfully a few days later. Hmm…

Jesus repeatedly claimed to be God in the flesh, right there with them. That's why they kept trying to stone him. And that is what they convicted him of when they tried him. So if he is a really moral teacher, then how could he be so "arrogant" as to claim to be God, that is, Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament? C.S. Lewis pointed out that anyone making those claims could not be a great moral teacher, but would have to be either telling the truth, self-deceived/lunatic, or a liar. Those of us who follow him believe he was telling the truth. ;)Or, possibly, he was misunderstood. Perhaps he was God. Perhaps you are God too.

Jesus had a much more profound view of what God actually was than anyone to whom he spoke. Is it too remote to suggest that his paternal God was the benevolent and conscious spirit of life and existence, which resided in him and beyond him, created him and is yet formed through him, taught him and learns through him and, in general, fathered him, just as it does every other human being? Not only that, but that this spirit of life was precisely the guide and guardian that led the Jews from captivity through Moses and that they were currently worshipping (albeit with their own skewed perspective on him)?

You mean you'd rather we were indoctrinated with atheism?

What's wrong with that?

You mean you'd rather we were indoctrinated with atheism?

I would rather we were all educated enough NOT to need the crutch of religion.

Or, possibly, he was misunderstood. Perhaps he was God. Perhaps you are God too.

Jesus had a much more profound view of what God actually was than anyone to whom he spoke. Is it too remote to suggest that his paternal God was the benevolent and conscious spirit of life and existence, which resided in him and beyond him, created him and is yet formed through him, taught him and learns through him and, in general, fathered him, just as it does every other human being? Not only that, but that this spirit of life was precisely the guide and guardian that led the Jews from captivity through Moses and that they were currently worshipping (albeit with their own skewed perspective on him)?


Well said.

And in response to Kamsaki's view of the difference between Buddhist and Christian selflessness: Because of the Jewish identity as the Chosen Ones, he probably understood how difficult it would be for them to incorporate the idea of" losing self" into their beliefs. So he found a compromise that would bring the Jews closer to the idea by presenting it to them as being "selfless" (as opposed to selfish) and hence all his preachings about charity and forgiveness and love.

Not everyoneis prepared to live like a Buddhist monk. Maybe this was Jesus way of bringing the people closer to enlightenment.

And I dont think he was Son of God literally, nor do I think he was a lunatic. The people that started the Christian relligion may have been lunatics, using his martyrdom to gain power in the political world at the time. I don't blame Jesus for the behavior of the Christian church, though. I don't think he foresaw that coming. Nor do I think he would have approved.

I would rather we were all educated enough NOT to need the crutch of religion. What does education have to do with it? My education has had nothing to do with my religion… before I converted you couldn't imagine me being religious.

Or, possibly, he was misunderstood. Perhaps he was God. Perhaps you are God too.

Oh yeah. Forgot I was all-powerful, all-knowing for a minute there! :rolleyes:

Jesus had a much more profound view of what God actually was than anyone to whom he spoke. Is it too remote to suggest that his paternal God was the benevolent and conscious spirit of life and existence, which resided in him and beyond him, created him and is yet formed through him, taught him and learns through him and, in general, fathered him, just as it does every other human being? Not only that, but that this spirit of life was precisely the guide and guardian that led the Jews from captivity through Moses and that they were currently worshipping (albeit with their own skewed perspective on him)?

Or perhaps his words were so simple and straightforward that a child could understand them, and yet so frightening and narrow that people wish he had said something more ethereal, and less related to what the Scriptures actually say plainly and clearly.

I am talking about the stuff that anyone can understand, like the quotes below

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me."
Jesus, Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6

"23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John, 8:23-24

I mean, what if you really do go on forever, and where you spend forever is dependent upon you believing in someone you have never laid eyes on, never heard, cannot question in the flesh, from an eyewitness account of what he allegedly said, written in a book you don't trust?

Instead of just looking for the websites that are "anti," maybe in the interest of saving yourself you should look at what the "pro" sites have to say, especially about answering the "tough" questions.

Christian Answers.Net (http://christiananswers.net//menu-at1.html)
Stand to Reason (STR.org) (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/index.htm)

This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. It gives assurance to the hope. Because of a Christian view of faith, Paul is able to say in 1 Corinthians 15 that when it comes to the resurrection, if we have only hope, but no assurance--if Jesus didn't indeed rise from the dead in time/space history--then we are of most men to be pitied. That's what he says: We are of most men to be pitied .

This confidence Paul is talking about is not a confidence in a mere "faith" resurrection, a mythical resurrection, a story-telling resurrection. Instead, it's a belief in a real resurrection. If the real resurrection didn't happen, then we're in trouble.

The Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn't correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said.

emphasis added by poster
Stand to Reason-commentary on definition of Faith (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/science/faithand.htm)


People have been "anti" since the beginning. They have tried to kill off the Jews and the Christians. They have tried to burn the Bible. They have ridiculed and cursed. But the Bible is still here. The followers of God are still here. And we still have answers to all those skeptical questions.

You dumb people do not have to answer the poll to post a thread.
Gotta be flame.
Why should you care what anyone thinks if they're beneath you intellectually?
*poke*

Oh yeah. Forgot I was all-powerful, all-knowing for a minute there! :rolleyes: Your definition of God, my definition of God and Jesus's definition of God are three different things. Do not assume that just because you have this idea of God as an all-powerful overlord that yours is precisely the view Jesus knew.

Or perhaps his words were so simple and straightforward that a child could understand them, and yet so frightening and narrow that people wish he had said something more ethereal, and less related to what the Scriptures actually say plainly and clearly. A nice idea, but that's not how, according to the church, Jesus approached his own teaching of the message to his Jewish followers. I make the two most obvious points; Hell and the Kingdom of God. Where Christianity would have us believe that these were otherworldly repurcussions of our actions, both of these at the time would have been perceived as physical locations: The former, a refuse pit used to make human sacrifices, the latter as the inevitable return to glory of the people of Israel under Yaweh.

Jesus is, apparently, full of double entendre. That very fact is a cornerstone of your organisation.

I am talking about the stuff that anyone can understand, like the quotes below

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me."
Jesus, Gospel of John, Chapter 14, verse 6I love this quotation. It's brilliantly subtle, yet clear. Are you aware of the Self personification used here? This sort of thing is done in English language all the time; Riddles! "I cannot be seen, cannot be felt, cannot be heard, cannot be smel't... What am I?"

Jesus is adopting a very simple literary phenomenon. He defines himself as the Way, Truth and Life; that is, the discovery of our spiritual selves, the search for Truth and the ethical life, all of which are outlined in Jesus's teachings. He then, using that definition, says that He is the way to the Father; the father being what Jesus perceived as God, which in my mind seems to be the conscious spirit of life.

Or, to simplify, Jesus is saying that following his teachings is the way to the Father; not, as is commonly believed, Jesus himself. Defining A then using A in a context does not mean that the letter "A" is to be used every time; merely whatever it is that A is defined as.

It's a very nice little use of linguistics. Jesus was quite the poet.

"23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.Ever heard the phrase "Being in the world but not of it"? It is a phrase used daily by the church to describe a simple state of mind: Not allowing society to distort your values while continuing to live within it and interact with others within it. That's a simple proclamation that Jesus is not allowing himself to be bound by the pressures of the world. But anyway, that's an aside from the point of this section of scripture:

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." John, 8:23-24The key thing here is context. This is an open but earthly warning to those who use their faith to control the masses. Look back to verse 13 and you'll see who he is addressing; verse 21 and you'll see what he thinks of them. The Pharisees cannot follow where Jesus leads for as long as they retain the social role and restrictive idea on who their God is that they currently hold.

This whole section of scripture is about the validity of Jesus's testimony; that the Pharisees need confirmation of divine authority in order to pay any attention whatsoever to what he is putting forward to the Jews. This desire for validity is blinding them from the simple truth that his moral teachings are a good idea. Jesus sees that they are allowing his proclamation to be the Son of God as a shield to refuse to change their ethics.

The above passage, therefore, is not a damnation. It is a simple fact. Until the Pharisees can see how Jesus and the Father could be unified, they will go on living the selfish life and will end up dying sinful human beings.

I mean, what if you really do go on forever, and where you spend forever is dependent upon you believing in someone you have never laid eyes on, never heard, cannot question in the flesh, from an eyewitness account of what he allegedly said, written in a book you don't trust?

...

People have been "anti" since the beginning. They have tried to kill off the Jews and the Christians. They have tried to burn the Bible. They have ridiculed and cursed. But the Bible is still here. The followers of God are still here. And we still have answers to all those skeptical questions.Herein is the surprise of my argument. I do not distrust the Gospels in the slightest. I hold them to be entirely valid second-hand sources of information on the life of Jesus.

I do, however, question your, your church and your founders' interpretation of these books and teachings. It is not apparent to me that anywhere in the gospels does Jesus proclaim that we will suffer eternally for sins, nor that the Kingdom of God is some spiritual realm where we all live in abject servitude to him. Both of these are flat-out contradictory to Jesus's ethical teachings about fellowship with God and about caring for your fellow man.

Why do I disagree? Because my view is backed up, in writing, within scriptural text, and because I feel that through covetation of prolonging your existence, the church has spun a unity with God that Jesus intended for all of us in our earthly lives into a full-on disrespect of God himself, herself or itself.

Love of God, following Jesus's path, listening to his teachings and living his life are reward enough in themselves. Keep your crummy afterlife; I know where my Kingdom of God lies.

Whoever he is, if he is alive, as the resurrection stories would have you believe, then I would want to know WHERE he is.

I got some questions for him. (and, NO, some regular human telling me what they THINK Jesus would answer is NOT good enough)

If you read the Bible you may have some idea. Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven to be with his Father forty days after the resurrection (Luke 24:50-53). His living presence is the Holy Spirit he gave to the world (Luke 1:35).

What does education have to do with it? My education has had nothing to do with my religion… before I converted you couldn't imagine me being religious.

Education has everything to do with it - only the ill-educated (or mentally ill) require religion to explain the world.

I gave up on religion when it demanded "faith" and failed to offer any credible answers to even my simple questions as a 12 year old.

It is a very sad reflection of the American people that such a large percentage of their nation still believe in the childish fairy stories that form the basis of every religion. It is an even sadder reflection that religion has so much control over their lives.

I dont know.

Education has everything to do with it - only the ill-educated (or mentally ill) require religion to explain the world.

I gave up on religion when it demanded "faith" and failed to offer any credible answers to even my simple questions as a 12 year old.

It is a very sad reflection of the American people that such a large percentage of their nation still believe in the childish fairy stories that form the basis of every religion. It is an even sadder reflection that religion has so much control over their lives. In that case I'm quicker than you… I gave up on religion as a nine year old (for five years). Really, religion has nothing to do with education at all - CS Lewis was a professor at Cambridge, and I haven't exactly had a bad education, assuming you mean the usual meaning of "education"…

In that case I'm quicker than you… I gave up on religion as a nine year old (for five years). Really, religion has nothing to do with education at all - CS Lewis was a professor at Cambridge, and I haven't exactly had a bad education, assuming you mean the usual meaning of "education"…

Ah! But you only managed to give up for 5 years, then you suffered a relapse. To feel the need for a religion is a clear sign of a poor education. As for CS Lewis, even the British education system isn't perfect.

Ah! But you only managed to give up for 5 years, then you suffered a relapse. To feel the need for a religion is a clear sign of a poor education. As for CS Lewis, even the British education system isn't perfect. How is my education at fault? :confused: I can see how I might be at fault, but you can't blame my education, it had no part in it whatsoever. In fact RS was my least favourite subject after Design Technology.

Oh is this thread still going? *yawn*

How is my education at fault? :confused: I can see how I might be at fault, but you can't blame my education, it had no part in it whatsoever. In fact RS was my least favourite subject after Design Technology.

Your education is at fault becuase it failed, you still believe in fairy stories.

Your education is at fault becuase it failed, you still believe in fairy stories. It failed in what? I didn't know the purpose of education was indoctrination.

What a wonderful question. Lets keep our replies to ones with intelligence. No one cares if you say something without proof.\

PS You do not have to answer the poll to post a thread, dummy.

hehe this is kinda funny cause I started a thread back when I was a newbie about Jesus with only 3 options and everyone said there were'nt enough... :D

I voted Son of God btw

In all likelihood, Jesus was a rabbi of sorts whose death, life and faith were sufficiently severe to engender his exagguration into a messiah. I fon e observes the lives of Mohammed, Guru Nanak and others, they are solely individuals with sufficient conviction to impress their faiths upon others, whose percieved miracles are either fraudulent or explicable. I do, however, find comfort in the concept of a supreme divine power, but lack any faith that Jesus is his messenger.

What a wonderful question. Lets keep our replies to ones with intelligence. No one cares if you say something without proof.\

PS You do not have to answer the poll to post a thread, dummy.
Who is Jesus Christ?

A recycling of the Egyptian myth of Horus. The cult of Jesus gained popularity and power when the (secular) ruler Constantine decided to use the Christians to secure political power. Today, Jesus functions as a catch-all for individuals who lack strong personal judgment (and instead must ask what Jesus would do), individuals who want a polite way to hate gays, and individuals who are unable to face the reality of their own mortality. Some attempt to discuss Jesus as a philosopher, but since all of Jesus' major philosophical points were rehashes of points made by previous thinkers and mythical figures it's pretty pointless to do that.

Some guy who doesnt want me for a sunbeam.

I'd say both

he is your mom :eek:

Jesus was this guy, yannow? he prolly did alotta drugs and wore a girls robe, but thats all coo, he was the original hippie and we all love him for it.
he walked around all day telling everyone that they should love eachother, and was ultimatly nailed to a large piece of wood for it.

some believe jesus was the son of god
others believe its just the drugs working their magic

but one thing is for certain, if he came down and saw what we were doing in his name, he's shake his head in shame.

so it really dosnt matter who or what jesus was, just that we should follow his teachings, love, forgive, and judge not. then we'd all die happy.

It failed in what? I didn't know the purpose of education was indoctrination.

The purpose of education is to:-

a) Teach you how to gather information.

b) Teach you how to assess information.

c) Teach you how to use that information.

Your education failed as you still believe in fairy stories.

The purpose of education is to:-

a) Teach you how to gather information.

b) Teach you how to assess information.

c) Teach you how to use that information.

Your education failed as you still believe in fairy stories.

Proper education also teaches you to question everything. To not take things for granted just because it's written in some book or some important person said it.

That's where true science kicks the asses of the conformists.

Lie naked on the floor
And let the messiah
Go through your soul

A TRAITOR and a bastard to my people.

I take it Lewis was unfamiliar with mythology.

Unfortunately, the whole text is full of those kinds of conclusions.... Lewis is all well and good, but his 'evidences' are only unarguable if you've never read any other mythology, and you agree to abide by Lewis' rules.

...and less related to what the Scriptures actually say plainly and clearly.


Always makes me wonder, when these people claim that Jesus' words were plain and clear, and then they post a mere English translation - with all the flaws inherent in that....

I am my own god, it's a great system :p

*bump*

[QUOTE=Tribal Ecology]Proper education also teaches you to question everything. To not take things for granted just because it's written in some book or some important person said it.

That's where true science kicks the asses of the conformists.

I totally agree.