The Legacy

[Saviourmachine]

Jesus

Jesus - just like every religious freak - believed only in his own (self-invented) religion. Therefore he threw out the money changers and the peddlers who sold animals and other stuff out of the temple. When Peter wants him to remember the fragility of his religion and to question his beliefs he rebukes him as being satan himself. He was being an idiot believing in his divine message sent by god. He embedded his message in parables, so that they "will hear but never understand. ... For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.'" Only the lucky few believing in him or fulfilling some other characteristic are worthy to hear his wonderful message. And the air of self-righteousness. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". As if he knew what he was doing! His lack of social skills is self-evident on the cross.

And what do you want to say to the people that try diligently to pray for and heal their 16 year old daughter dying of diabetes? Are the medicines of the world worthless compared to the medicine of Jesus?

He could have spread a message of love to homosexuals, to women, to pagans, to so many people. In stead of that he chose to do some tiny scale miracles, to quarrel with the pharisees and to talk a lot about the kingdom of god. He could have done better than that!

 

And although you don't believe in this Jesus, but in the real only loving one, this is a portret that definitely also can be sketched.

 

Continued

Matth. 24:5 states clearly that Jesus is the real Christ. And that love and hate is caused by the gospel. Not that the gospel is a message of love. It's about the ones that are chosen (Matth. 24:22) and that gives me not some warm feeling inside, because I - and all of us here - are the outsiders. We are the hypocrytes, we are the real sinners, we are the unbelievers.

And about the inheritance of sin; it can be found in Matth. 23:34-35. What has the blood of Abel do to with the destruction of the temple and all the cruelties commited that time?

And what is this superstition of "an evil eye" in Mark 7:22? Seeing devils everywhere is something for an insane person. Remember the poor little swines that fell of the cliff on Jesus command. What a message of love!

 

When Jesus and the devil are as real to you as your brothers and sisters your life will fall apart!

[Vigile]

 

Very nice, thoughtful post SM

[Bodhi-in-Training]

Although, none of you have given a reason for the dislike of him . . . only Christianity in general, in which case, I'm in agreement.

 

Um, I thought I mentioned the hell doctrine a couple of times. You chose to reinterpret it and attribute it to other writers, but oh well

 

Much in the way Fly has chosen to select and interpret what Jesus taught...take the bits that you want to believe and toss out all the bits that contradict them. And we all know the Bible is chuck full of contradictions.

 

 

Fly if you want to believe that Jesus was "all about the love" so be it. But debating that fact with a group of Xtians is not going to get you very far.

[MQTA]

...

 

Perhaps, you could shed some light as to why Jesus is viewed as a villian around here? Seriously, name one thing he did in his reported life that would justify such bitter views of him. Then again, people hate for absolutely no reason at all, and I suspect the same is true for those here that hate Jesus regardless of his documented actions. I think Christianity in general made you guys bitter. (It did me) But, Jesus did nothing but good in this world, as far as I can see. I'm sure you don't care what I think, nor do I anticipate any justifiable reason for your bitterness towards the man/myth Jesus.

 

Hell, fire, brimstone . . . What a crock of sh!t! I don't think Jesus introduced the concept of a 'literal' hell at all. I suspect it was introduced by catholic priest hungry for power, and dead head followers. /Shrug

 

You guys remember that Wendy's commercial? Well, where's the beef (behind the bitterness?) I really want to know! Maybe I'll see the light, and reject his positive influence on the world as you have . . .

 

Bitterness towards Jesus? Most people don't believe that anything written about Jesus has anything to do with Jesus. Paul seemingly saw an opportunity and made something of what he thought Peter, John and James were doing. But there may not have even been a Paul, it could have all been created from the writings of Apollonius of Tyana (Paul of Tarsis? eh, could be).

 

If you get some good ideas, then great, good ideas are good ideas. Ripple from there.

[non conformist]

I can't wrap my mind around it . . .

 

Just as many here can't nor care, to wrap their minds about how you can see the good in the myth/man Jesus.

 

It doesn't matter either way. <Chuckle> I choose to see the good in the man/myth (whatever), whereas you people choose to see "whatever it is you see"???????????????

 

Perhaps, you could shed some light as to why Jesus is viewed as a villian around here? Seriously, name one thing he did in his reported life that would justify such bitter views of him. Then again, people hate for absolutely no reason at all, and I suspect the same is true for those here that hate Jesus regardless of his documented actions. I think Christianity in general made you guys bitter. (It did me) But, Jesus did nothing but good in this world, as far as I can see. I'm sure you don't care what I think, nor do I anticipate any justifiable reason for your bitterness towards the man/myth Jesus.

 

Hell, fire, brimstone . . . What a crock of sh!t! I don't think Jesus introduced the concept of a 'literal' hell at all. I suspect it was introduced by catholic priest hungry for power, and dead head followers. /Shrug

 

You guys remember that Wendy's commercial? Well, where's the beef (behind the bitterness?) I really want to know! Maybe I'll see the light, and reject his positive influence on the world as you have . . .

 

Here is a little detailed outline that might show you some of the reasons Jesus deserves neither admiration or respect, let alone love. Please make me understand how one is supposed to reconcile this supposed message of love from the same person who condemns me for having different beliefs? Please read this:

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

 

Now, you seem to be both for and against Jesus, so I'm really confused as to what it is you're trying to convey with your "I don't believe in Christianity but Jesus is my homeboy" message....

[Taphophilia]

Taph, wasn't A Course in Miracles the writings of some wacko claiming to be channelling Jesus? Why would you recommend this book?

 

They were two psychologists doing automatic writing. At least they had advanced degrees.

 

If Fly believes in Jesus and the God is love concept, I was suggesting that he check out that book. It's a better alternative to Christianity.

 

There is some good stuff in the book, if you've ever read it.

[NotBlinded]

Fly,

 

Have you ever considered "A Course In Miracles" It uses a lot of Christian language but is definitely not Christian. It also puts Christ in the same "God is love" tone you speak of and it's a much better book then the Bible.

 

"The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love's presence, which is your natural inheritance. The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

 

This course can therefore be summed up very simply in this way:

 

Nothing real can be threatened.

Nothing unreal exists.

 

Herein lies the peace of God."

Taph,

 

You just shocked the s*@t out of me! A friend of mine was just telling me about that book yesterday and says that Tolle mentions it several times. On the way to work this morning, I was listening to Tolle (as usual) and he mentioned it twice. Now I'm at work reading you mentioning it! Coincidence? I don't care! I must now read that book...

 

Taph, wasn't A Course in Miracles the writings of some wacko claiming to be channelling Jesus? Why would you recommend this book?

 

They were two psychologists doing automatic writing. At least they had advanced degrees.

 

If Fly believes in Jesus and the God is love concept, I was suggesting that he check out that book. It's a better alternative to Christianity.

 

There is some good stuff in the book, if you've ever read it.

Then, I wonder, why can't one pick and choose the good stuff from the bible? It's also a just a book. I don't think one has to accept all of it as truth in order to find meaning.

[non conformist]

Then, I wonder, why can't one pick and choose the good stuff from the bible? It's also a just a book. I don't think one has to accept all of it as truth in order to find meaning.

 

I agree with you to a certain extent....you can find meaning in everything you read; but how many other books have so much "meaning" that people die and kill over it's content? Sure, everyone can agree that there is stuff in the bible that makes sense; otherwise it wouldn't be as "popular". It's still trash; it's dangerous. Other books don't dangle the carrot of "everlasting life" or "everlasting hellfire" in the readers nose, unless it were fiction. This crap is all supposed to be real. That's why it should be totally discarded.

[NotBlinded]

I agree with you to a certain extent....you can find meaning in everything you read; but how many other books have so much "meaning" that people die and kill over it's content? Sure, everyone can agree that there is stuff in the bible that makes sense; otherwise it wouldn't be as "popular". It's still trash; it's dangerous. Other books don't dangle the carrot of "everlasting life" or "everlasting hellfire" in the readers nose, unless it were fiction. This crap is all supposed to be real. That's why it should be totally discarded.

I think that is where the problem lies...it's not supposed to be real as in really happening. I agree with you that taken as a book of historical happenings, it's trash. I don't think originally it was meant to be taken literally. The Gnostics didn't, they understood Jesus' (which ever Jesus that was, it's not important) teachings as allegory that related to the inner journey of man (no gender specificity meant). The church got ahold of the documents and distorted them and made them into something they weren't. They them claimed anyone who took them as allegory to be heretics. If there is any blame to be placed, it is on the church. That is why I think one should be allowed to pick and choose what meaning they can and dismiss the rest as nonsense. Wouldn't that be great if all the fundamentalists did that? That would really screw the church wouldn't it?

 

Take what Saviour (my bud ) was saying about Jesus throwing out the money changers and the animal sellers at the temple for instance. He could be referring to the temple as one's body and in order to understand the "Christ-nature" that is in us all, we have to rid ourselves of our attachments to money and material things (not the things themselves, but the attachment to them). And when throwing out the animals he was referring to getting rid of our predatory desires (animals). All a self-cleaning, or self-enlightement if you will. It has nothing to do with a real temple.

[non conformist]

NBT,

 

Yes, the church definitely distorted and contorted scripture to further it's own agenda of control and superiority, especially towards the poor. However, we live in this "enlightened" age, where reason is supposed to rule over mysticism; yet, because of the imbalance of the teachings of the bible, whether they were doctored up or not, it's extremely difficult for a person to be picky or choosey about what to take away from it. If you're a person of faith, there's no way that you can accept the positive without the negative, because faith comes with rules, and consequences for breaking those rules. On the other hand, a person who's faith has been shaken, even broken reads the bible and picks out the flowers and sunshine, and leaves out the crap...they don't apply it to their lives. But the problem with that is, at least for me, how can you pick the "good" teachings of Jesus and ignore the horrible things he "said"; or even god himself? How can these hypocrite beings teach me anything about love, while they spew horrendous punishment, judgements, and hate towards humanity. I can't accept that love because it's not pure, it has restrictions, and it has a price.

[Bodhi-in-Training]

Then, I wonder, why can't one pick and choose the good stuff from the bible? It's also a just a book. I don't think one has to accept all of it as truth in order to find meaning.

 

I agree, there is nothing wrong with taking good moral lessons and incorporating them into your own life, test them out, see if they work. The problem, in this instance, is we have someone taking bits and pieces and then coming to a conclusion based on only those parts and ignoring the "unsavoury" parts. That's when we start down a slippery slope....

[NotBlinded]

NBT,

 

Yes, the church definitely distorted and contorted scripture to further it's own agenda of control and superiority, especially towards the poor. However, we live in this "enlightened" age, where reason is supposed to rule over mysticism; yet, because of the imbalance of the teachings of the bible, whether they were doctored up or not, it's extremely difficult for a person to be picky or choosey about what to take away from it. If you're a person of faith, there's no way that you can accept the positive without the negative, because faith comes with rules, and consequences for breaking those rules. On the other hand, a person who's faith has been shaken, even broken reads the bible and picks out the flowers and sunshine, and leaves out the crap...they don't apply it to their lives. But the problem with that is, at least for me, how can you pick the "good" teachings of Jesus and ignore the horrible things he "said"; or even god himself? How can these hypocrite beings teach me anything about love, while they spew horrendous punishment, judgements, and hate towards humanity. I can't accept that love because it's not pure, it has restrictions, and it has a price.

Absolutely. They can't teach you anything at all about love, the true love you speak of. Only you can know when it is true. All it does is point. That is how you know which ones aren't crap, the ones that take the negative only because of faith are missing out on the positive also. True love, the kind one finds in themselves, has no opposite. That is why they cannot apply it to their lives. It is only a surface love (one of the ego) that is prone to opposites. It's a constant battle in their minds. When their faith has been broken or shaken, as you point out, it naturally causes one to realize that it cannot be true as interpreted. IMO, I like to think that this punishment and hate it refers to is just what we inflict on ourselves by being controlled too much by our ego and not knowing our inner selves, which is where true love resides.

[Amethyst]

I disagree, though. I think that love was (is) the bread and butter of Jesus' entire legacy.

 

Sure, if you want to love only those who are of your denomination, white, middle/upper class, homophobic, conservative, bigoted people.

 

The Bible also says you will know if something is good or evil by its fruits...well, just look at what Christianity has wrought.

 

 

 

Maybe that's the B-side...does the devil incarnate play guitar?

 

No, just the fiddle.

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. You can follow the Golden Rule and not be a Christian, you know, that concept was taken from other religions long before Christianity.

[NotBlinded]

Then, I wonder, why can't one pick and choose the good stuff from the bible? It's also a just a book. I don't think one has to accept all of it as truth in order to find meaning.

 

I agree, there is nothing wrong with taking good moral lessons and incorporating them into your own life, test them out, see if they work. The problem, in this instance, is we have someone taking bits and pieces and then coming to a conclusion based on only those parts and ignoring the "unsavoury" parts. That's when we start down a slippery slope....

I would like to think that even the unsavoury parts have meaning. Like when Jesus said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34) and then the remaining verses 10:35-37:

 

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

If you don't mind, I will use someone else's interpretation:

 

Here we realize that in reaching for the real path we have to make sacrifices, not giving up rightful responsibilities and obligations, but rather not clinging to personal desires. The relatives here are symbolic of personal attributes and attachments that must be released in order that the genuine aspect of us can come through. There must also be recognition of our duality and inevitable conflicts.

 

The question of readiness to accept challenges in order to attain the path is clarified further in Matthew (10:34). Jesus says: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" -- and that sword is the spiritual will, which must be activated along with the practice of the various virtues.

From The Lamp of Spiritual Discernment

 

It just does me so much good to understand these passages as an inner battle, not a literal one. So, when I see someone picking and choosing, it makes me smile.

[Fly]

Ahhh, light at the end of the tunnel. I was beginning to think you'd never come around, Cerise.

btw, there is no flip side as far as I can tell. I shouldn't need to tread lightly, though. Most of you know what it means to believe in Jesus, or at least most of you (Being ex-Christians) once believed he was about love, right?

Very unlikely...

crazy-tiger, I never said any of my views were truth. I never will, either! I accept that they are 'ideas'. I've only suggested that love was the essence of my views on Jesus. My idea of truth is what we find in reality, not what some book says it is.

Are you now saying that your view (the one of Jesus teaching love) is not actually true?

Btw, the golden rule is the message I believe in as well .. .only I got it from the Bible. I don't always adhere to it, but I do believe in it.

 

You say Jesus teaches hate, though. I've never read that. Unless you're talking about hating evil, and so called sin, I'd say your mistaken. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your views. I certainly won't judge you for them. I may disagree, but I won't judge.

You've never read it... you haven't read anything that shows Jesus teaching hate, intolerence and fear?

I suppose, I reject what doesn't make sense to me, and take in what does. It doesn't take a genius to discern the good from the bad. Perhaps, I attribute the good to him because that is what I choose to do. Perhaps, I see what I choose to see, and ignore the rest because it doesn't fit the bill. The few things negative attributed to Jesus pale in commparison to the positive, and I simply 'choose' to focus on the good, as many of you choose to focus on the bad.

Yes you have... you just chose to ignore it!

Hate, intolerance, and fear is the legacy of Christianity. I don't see this in Jesus, or what I believe his message to be. Maybe, I'm missing something you're not? If so, perhaps you could explain, and enlighten me?

You are missing something, alright... you're missing out a load of what Jesus taught.

 

As I said, it's not a "make your own message" thing... you either take ALL the message, or none of it. Leaving out any part of it means you are not getting the message at all... if the message is 5 and you leave out 10% of it, the message you get is 4.5... which isn't the message at all, is it?

 

 

One thing you should remember... Christianity is the Legacy of Jesus. It might not be the Legacy that he wanted, but it's the result of his teachings...

It doesn't matter whether you see the hate, fear and intolerence in his teachings... others did and still do.

 

That's his Legacy, and I'm justified in hating the founder of that legacy. (well, I'd hate him if he'd actually existed)

 

 

Still telling people what they must take from the Bible, eh? <Chuckle> I'm a grown man, and I'll take what I wish from the writ. I was told what I had to believe for many years, crazy-tiger. I wised up, though, and discovered love, then marched onward from there. I know what I believe in today, and I know why I believe in it, and I know who is responsible for my awakening.

 

I could care less if you hate Jesus, or not. I'm not trying to change your mind. I enjoy having a bit of fun in debate type settings. I also enjoy sharing what I believe with others. I don't like religion, but when I recieve an understanding of something pure like love. I like to give credit where credit is due, and in my case it is due to Jesus, and the written word.

 

I also have mad respect for John Lennon. I thought he was a great man. He didn't threaten the sinners with Hell, so I doubt anyone gives a shit if I respect him, or not . . .But, when it comes to my admiration of Jesus it is a different story altogether.

 

Also, I do ignore the negative, and take only the good. I won't waste my time on something I know isn't right. Certainly, if it's in the Bible! I don't trust the Bbile, crazy-tiger, but I do know that there is some good stuff in there. I don't have to accept the whole message . . . only the one's that make sense!

 

That is my right!

 

I have a choice!

 

You know what I have chosen . . .

 

 

Okay, I have to ask this...

 

Fly, why are you giving jesus so much glory for saying "Love God, Love your neighbor"? BOTH of those are teachings from the OT. As a matter of fact the commandment to "love your neighbor" comes from that all dreadful book, Leviticus.

 

Because that is who I got it from. I don't know where it came from, and I don't care. Jesus is the one who introduced it to me, therefore he gets the credit.

 

 

 

I understood the depth of that commandment by reading the teachings of Jesus

[Taphophilia]

I don't believe the Bible is a complete book. It has been edited and revised. It has had books added and books thown out of it, that it doesn't give an adaquate picture of the first Christians who did not believe Jesus was God. I believe they were very different then what has been handed down to us.

 

Stuff that didn't make the cut:

 

For I am the first and the last. I am the honored one and the scorned one.

I am the whore and the holy one.

I am the wife and the virgin....

I am the barren one, and many are her sons....

I am the silence that is incomprehensible....

I am the utterance of my name.

(hmm...female God?)

 

And the companion of Jesus is Mary Magdalene. Jesus loved her more than all his disciples, and frequently kissed her on the mouth. The rest of [the disciples] [got close to her to ask]. They told him: "Why do you love her more than all of us?" Jesus responded and said: "Why do I not love you as I love her?" (Gospel of Philip 63-64).

[crazy-tiger]

Still telling people what they must take from the Bible, eh? <Chuckle> I'm a grown man, and I'll take what I wish from the writ. I was told what I had to believe for many years, crazy-tiger. I wised up, though, and discovered love, then marched onward from there. I know what I believe in today, and I know why I believe in it, and I know who is responsible for my awakening.

Helping you to see that what a part of a message says is not the same as what the whole message says... despite your insistence to the contrary.

I could care less if you hate Jesus, or not. I'm not trying to change your mind. I enjoy having a bit of fun in debate type settings. I also enjoy sharing what I believe with others. I don't like religion, but when I recieve an understanding of something pure like love. I like to give credit where credit is due, and in my case it is due to Jesus, and the written word.

Then make sure you credit him with the message of something pure like hate as well...

 

Or would that go against the religion you have? (yes, you have a religion... for a start, you're still a Christian, as your posts are busy proving)

I also have mad respect for John Lennon. I thought he was a great man. He didn't threaten the sinners with Hell, so I doubt anyone gives a shit if I respect him, or not . . .But, when it comes to my admiration of Jesus it is a different story altogether.

Why would that be? We know that Lennon was a real man, that he promoted a message of love without any hate to go with it...

No, there's nothing wrong with respecting Lennon... but I wonder why you would have more respect for someone who we don't even know if they existed AND promotes messages of hate to go with the one of love?

 

Basically, you're still respecting Jesus because he's Jesus... not for anything else.

Also, I do ignore the negative, and take only the good. I won't waste my time on something I know isn't right. Certainly, if it's in the Bible! I don't trust the Bbile, crazy-tiger, but I do know that there is some good stuff in there. I don't have to accept the whole message . . . only the one's that make sense!

 

That is my right!

You're damn right it's your right... but it's not your right to take a small part of the message and then proclaim that it's ALL OF THE MESSAGE!

 

THAT is what you have done, and it's that which is the problem.

I have a choice!

 

You know what I have chosen . . .

Yes... you've chosen to ignore a lot of Jesus's teachings so that you can bask in the love you claim is all he teaches.

 

 

Unlike you, I do not chose to use such a dishonest method in evaluating the WHOLE message Jesus taught... unlike you, I evaluate the ENTIRE message, not just the bits I like.

[Cerise]

It just does me so much good to understand these passages as an inner battle, not a literal one. So, when I see someone picking and choosing, it makes me smile.

 

 

If that's what Jesus meant...then why not just bloody well SAY it that way? Why make a huge interpretive production out of it and obscure the message?

 

I've met post-modern poets who were clearer...honestly!

 

Sorry but, I don't really see how the entire Bible can be taken as allegory. I meant you could do it, but how long before some of the interpretations become ludicrus? How are you going to harmonize leviticus in allegory? How are you going to interpret moments of extreme historicism?

[NotBlinded]

I don't believe the Bible is a complete book. It has been edited and revised. It has had books added and books thown out of it, that it doesn't give an adaquate picture of the first Christians who did not believe Jesus was God. I believe they were very different then what has been handed down to us.

 

Stuff that didn't make the cut:

 

For I am the first and the last. I am the honored one and the scorned one.

I am the whore and the holy one.

I am the wife and the virgin....

I am the barren one, and many are her sons....

I am the silence that is incomprehensible....

I am the utterance of my name.

(hmm...female God?)

 

And the companion of Jesus is Mary Magdalene. Jesus loved her more than all his disciples, and frequently kissed her on the mouth. The rest of [the disciples] [got close to her to ask]. They told him: "Why do you love her more than all of us?" Jesus responded and said: "Why do I not love you as I love her?" (Gospel of Philip 63-64).

More that didn't make the cut and was considered heresy by the Catholic Church:

 

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

 

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

 

2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

 

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

 

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

 

That would just crush the church to accept that churches are not needed. Besides, that is more along the lines of what I think the true message to be.

[Amanda]

Yes... you've chosen to ignore a lot of Jesus's teachings so that you can bask in the love you claim is all he teaches.

 

Unlike you, I do not chose to use such a dishonest method in evaluating the WHOLE message Jesus taught... unlike you, I evaluate the ENTIRE message, not just the bits I like.

 

Hello Crazy Tiger...

 

I appreciate so many insightful perspectives you offer to many discussions. Yet, may I respectfully ask what is wrong with taking bits and pieces from many different philosophies, some of which one finds beneficial and uses, while discarding what one does not find helpful? I'm curious if this 'all or none' approach is what you find appropriate of ALL these philosophers, and if so... why?

[Cerise]

Yes... you've chosen to ignore a lot of Jesus's teachings so that you can bask in the love you claim is all he teaches.

 

Unlike you, I do not chose to use such a dishonest method in evaluating the WHOLE message Jesus taught... unlike you, I evaluate the ENTIRE message, not just the bits I like.

 

Hello Crazy Tiger...

 

I appreciate so many insightful perspectives you offer to many discussions. Yet, may I respectfully ask what is wrong with taking bits and pieces from many different philosophies, some of which one finds beneficial and uses, while discarding what one does not find helpful? I'm curious if this 'all or none' approach is what you find appropriate of ALL these philosophers, and if so... why?

 

 

Is it really possible to take only part of something and disconnect it entirely from the whole? Especially regarding ideologies?

 

Also...if you're going to be copying and pasting anyway, why not just make up your won religion and leave the already established ones alone?

[NotBlinded]

It just does me so much good to understand these passages as an inner battle, not a literal one. So, when I see someone picking and choosing, it makes me smile.

 

 

If that's what Jesus meant...then why not just bloody well SAY it that way? Why make a huge interpretive production out of it and obscure the message?

 

I've met post-modern poets who were clearer...honestly!

 

Sorry but, I don't really see how the entire Bible can be taken as allegory. I meant you could do it, but how long before some of the interpretations become ludicrus? How are you going to harmonize leviticus in allegory? How are you going to interpret moments of extreme historicism?

Well, Cerise, I have read that the message was obscured because if certain people understood it before they were ready, they could use it harmfully. I personally think that it backfired. I really can't answer that question without going into the reincarnation beliefs that were held. The evolution of the soul happens over stages and the ones that were ready to hear it became initiates into the language. I know...it sounds crazy, but I think that was what was believed. I'm just trying to explain why they may have written it in a mystery language.

 

There are supposed to be keys to understanding all of it and India still has these keys. Egypt has lost some of them and Moses (an initiate in Egypt) only left with two keys of understanding. That is why most of it will not harmonize and in this case, it's okay to pick and choose because most of the bible was written with little understanding of the language. It's really one of the worst ones written.

[Amethyst]

Also, I do ignore the negative, and take only the good. I won't waste my time on something I know isn't right. Certainly, if it's in the Bible! I don't trust the Bbile, crazy-tiger, but I do know that there is some good stuff in there. I don't have to accept the whole message . . . only the one's that make sense!

 

So when you read Lord of the Rings, do you ignore all the stuff about Sauron and read only the parts with Gandalf and Frodo? When you read Harry Potter, do you ignore all the stuff about Voldemort and only read what Harry says, or what Dumbledore says, or what Harry's friends say? That's what you are doing with the bible. You are only getting part of the story.

 

See, I used to be like you once. I used to think I could do that. Then I realized: it's like having Christmas without exchanging gifts, or celebrating someone's birthday without the birthday person being there, or celebrating Thanksgiving by yourself, or...well, you get the idea, I hope. You are only getting part of the picture of Christianity when you ignore the negative side of it and try to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

Sure, it's your right to look at a photograph and crop off say, 3/4 of it because you don't like that part of it, but if you can only enjoy 1/4 of that photo, then you might as well just take a new photo.

[NotBlinded]

Nevermind...not appropriate

[crazy-tiger]

Yes... you've chosen to ignore a lot of Jesus's teachings so that you can bask in the love you claim is all he teaches.

 

Unlike you, I do not chose to use such a dishonest method in evaluating the WHOLE message Jesus taught... unlike you, I evaluate the ENTIRE message, not just the bits I like.

 

Hello Crazy Tiger...

 

I appreciate so many insightful perspectives you offer to many discussions. Yet, may I respectfully ask what is wrong with taking bits and pieces from many different philosophies, some of which one finds beneficial and uses, while discarding what one does not find helpful? I'm curious if this 'all or none' approach is what you find appropriate of ALL these philosophers, and if so... why?

You've missed my point... There's nothing wrong with doing just that, but there's an awful lot wrong with taking a small part of a philosophy and then claiming that the small part is the ENTIRE philosophy.

 

That is the whole point of my disagreement with Fly... that he's essentially quote-mining Jesus!

 

 

 

There's a lot of things that annoy me, (I'm only human, after all...) but quote-mining is one of the major ones... no matter who is doing it.

 

Sure, it's your right to look at a photograph and crop off say, 3/4 of it because you don't like that part of it, but if you can only enjoy 1/4 of that photo, then you might as well just take a new photo.

Erm... it essentially is a new photo...