The Legacy

[Fly]

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.

 

Harry Potter, anf Lord of The Rings are for entertainment. The Bible sets a more serious tone, I think. I understand what you are saying, but it is my right to dicern the good from the bad, and embrace only that which I find positive? (Is it not?) There is something in the New Testament that suggests that we are to judge by fruits. I think most are able to do this, and I do it when reading any holy text. I judge the spirit behind the message, and either embrace it, or discard it. It's really that simple. We do the same when reading books like Harry Potter . . .We either embrace Harry and his friends, or we embrace the bad people. We look at it all, but we all play favorites, and embrace only what/who we choose.

 

Maybe Jesus wasn't 'all about the love', but that is what I mostly see in him.

 

btw, crazy-tiger . . . I don't mind being called a Christian. I hold many Christian values at heart. Even so, I don't consider myself to be one. Just because I have an admiration for Jesus, and derive many of my values from Christian texts, doesn't make me a Christian. I'm a seeker, and I look for anwers; that is all . . .

[crazy-tiger]

btw, crazy-tiger . . . I don't mind being called a Christian. I hold many Christian values at heart. Even so, I don't consider myself to be one. Just because I have an admiration for Jesus, and derive many of my values from Christian texts, doesn't make me a Christian. I'm a seeker, and I look for anwers; that is all . . .

Are you seeking the message that Jesus taught, or just the bits of it that you like? If it's just the bits you like, are you really looking for answers?

 

You see... not many seekers would deliberately cut off part of the area they are searching... those that do, are looking for answers that agree with what they've already decided.

As such, they're not really seeking anything... except a way to justify what they believe.

 

 

 

You said it yourself... you ignore the negative because it isn't right. But it isn't right because it doesn't agree with what you believe, which is that Jesus's whole message was one of love. (which, incidentally, has been shown to be wrong...)

The only answer you're going to get is the answer you want to get, because you're ignoring any other answer... Why do you ignore them? Because they're just not right. Why are they not right? Because they don't agree with the answer you want.

 

Now... are you going to look for answers in ALL of the message, or are you going to ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas of what the answers should be?

[Mythra]

If I would have given Mother Goose as much money as I threw away on Jesus, I'd hate that bitch too.

[SkepticOfBible]

Jesus was all about the love, Fweethawt. This is what I get out of the writ, anyway. All you have to do is read the new testament, and you'll see it. (If you look)

 

Sure, Jesus and christian god is all about love, but only to his few chosen believers(not all). He hates unbelievers, cause according to the bible unbelievers are deemed to be anti christ and will be thrown in the fiery fire of hells and will endure everlasting torture.

 

Check out this christian cartoon as to what will happen to believer and non-believer, also it tells at the end what you should do if you are not a believer of christ.

Chick Tract

 

Well, even if we admit Jesus Christ was real and died for us, can you please tell us which followers of Christ shall we listen to, Roman Catholic Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Mormon or Jehovahs witness. Each of these groups have their own take on how to practice christianity. A common answer is that "the answer lies in the bible". Now the question comes which bible? All of them have different bibles. But wait, according to your world worldview, only 16th centuary protestants have the correct version of gods word and correct world view. But protestant christianity itself is a joke, cause protestant can't even agree on many of the core doctrine(whether baptised is required, whether speaking in tongues is possible, homosexuality/pre marital sex is a sin or not, whether jesus will come again or not, whether god created the world in 6 literal days, whether everybody is saved or not). Each Denomination tries to outdo the other. Surely the God of the Bible loves the confusion amongst it's followers, and if the fundamentalist version of christianity is correct, then only 10% of world population will be saved and the rest 90% will torment in hell forever(this included deemed psueado believers in christ). And this a fundamentalist christian say is a victory to for Jesus

 

And the same time believers have to admit that killings of babies, woman, legal rape of conquered female, slavery, killing people for having sex, or just working on a Sabbath is ordained by this god is just and fair. Also that people who commit attrocities (eg hamstringing horses, cut off foreskin of 200 philistine in order to marry the daughter of king, child sacrifice,) are exahlted by the bible god.

 

The Idols of the Bible

Good Essay About the Barbaric Law of The OT

 

 

And here is prime example of the centuary old bickering between protestant and catholic. It is just a example how the believers in christ can't agree with each other even if they are talking about the same books.

 

Catholic And Protestant Fight

Catholic And Protestant Fight

 

 

And here is an bible study group which demonstrate some of the conflicts in christianity, this one is particularly good cause it is honest in it's approach, and tries to show conflicting part of christianity. As someone said, 90% arguements

TwoPaths.com

 

It is no surprising that people leave christianity cause they cannot tolerate the hypocrasy from the followers of christ. If there was any true christian today, then the rate of rejection would not be that high, unfortunelately that is not so. Here is a good reason why there are no true christians in this world No True Christian

 

But then if you have found peace and happiness in your chosen faith that is fine, but please understand many christian over here have tried their best and have not found peace in christianity, but rather finding peace by being outside christianity.

[Amethyst]

Harry Potter, anf Lord of The Rings are for entertainment. The Bible sets a more serious tone, I think.

 

Have you even READ Harry Potter & LoTR? There's a lot of dark stuff in them, just as there is in the Bible. That's no argument. It is an apt analogy because all three of them are fiction.

 

If you don't believe me, then please provide evidence that at least the key people and events in the Bible were real. And it must be scientific evidence.

 

I understand what you are saying, but it is my right to dicern the good from the bad, and embrace only that which I find positive? (Is it not?)

 

I never said it wasn't. However, as I said...if you have a picture, but you can only enjoy like, 1/10 of it because you crop off all the rest, why not just get a new picture rather than trying to enjoy a teeny, tiny part of it?

 

There is something in the New Testament that suggests that we are to judge by fruits.

 

So you'd rather be part of a religion that says it's okay to kill homosexuals, wiccans, and apostates? That it's okay to stone women to death? That it's okay to hate people just because they're different from you? This is all in the OT, and if you ignore it, you are ignoring the true nature of the religion.

 

Well, be my guest if you want to be a part of such a bigoted, hateful, spiteful, twisted and prejudiced belief system. I don't want to have anything whatsoever to do with it.

[non conformist]

Hey, if we're gonna be "judging by their fruit", I think we should start with Jesus. How would you view someone who preaches love your enemies, but condemns his? Who warns against anger, but displays anger time and time again? Who's supposed message of peace should, as Fly said, save mankind; yet, left no instructions on how to achieve peace on earth? All this love you attribute to Jesus because you've read it in the bible does not exist. No fruit bearing. He may have mentioned love, but he treated his own mother with disdain, never ever condemned slavery or sexism....and you attribute love to this person? You've contorted the scriptures to suit your bubblegum ideals, without realizing what kind of person you are admiring....just like a Christian.

[MQTA]

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.

I don't think most people realize that. They think it's Brand new to the NT

 

or, it just didn't matter all those years before, only when Jesus said it.

 

I'm sure Mithra said it too.

 

Like, duh, how hard a concept is it?

[Amanda]

So you'd rather be part of a religion that says it's okay to kill homosexuals, wiccans, and apostates? That it's okay to stone women to death? That it's okay to hate people just because they're different from you? This is all in the OT, and if you ignore it, you are ignoring the true nature of the religion.

 

Well, be my guest if you want to be a part of such a bigoted, hateful, spiteful, twisted and prejudiced belief system. I don't want to have anything whatsoever to do with it.

 

Hello Amethyst...

 

I deeply respect your sense of values. Yet, it seems to me... that aknowledging these teachings of Jesus does not necessarily mean that a particular person has interpreted them in these ways you've posted above. Sure, it may be a popular current spin... with which values I also find disgusting. Yet, it may also be a convincing lie perpetuated by those who prostitute its significance for their own agendas. IMO, it can be equated with the commonly perpetrated belief that Hitler was an Atheist. Neither are true.

 

Also, many of other religions, such as Buddhist and Islamic, see these teachings of Jesus differently than you've attributed them, and they respect their own interpretations of these teachings, yet do not refer to themselves as Christians. I understand and agree with your frustrations of the fundamentalist religous right, yet not all people see Jesus as these narrow minded people do.

[MQTA]

 

 

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?

 

There's nothing wrong with that approach. A person like that wouldn't be going around trying to sell that formula to anyone else, nor threatening them with eternal torment if they didn't believe as they did, nor would they say it's the ONLY way.

[NotBlinded]

I can understand the insistence of taking it all as it is if it were to be taken literally or if it were written by a single author. The bible wasn't written by a single author and the original Christians didn't take it literally, so I don't see the harm in taking out the parts that are bad and building a new photo (or restoring an old one) because of the history of it. That is exactly what one must do in order to find meaning in it. What is wrong with quote mining Jesus (regardless of whether or not he was real) when no one knows exactly what Jesus said for sure? Maybe Fly should say that he loves the philosophy behind that saying attributed to Jesus and not the other ones that are attributed to Jesus. He has already said that he doesn't think that Jesus was the son of god and it doesn't matter to him. Is that what the problem is...one of specificity?

 

We all know when we try to make the bible into a comprehensible philosophy it falls flat on its face, so something is wrong with doing that.

 

So you'd rather be part of a religion that says it's okay to kill homosexuals, wiccans, and apostates? That it's okay to stone women to death? That it's okay to hate people just because they're different from you? This is all in the OT, and if you ignore it, you are ignoring the true nature of the religion.

 

Well, be my guest if you want to be a part of such a bigoted, hateful, spiteful, twisted and prejudiced belief system. I don't want to have anything whatsoever to do with it.

 

Hello Amethyst...

 

I deeply respect your sense of values. Yet, it seems to me... that aknowledging these teachings of Jesus does not necessarily mean that a particular person has interpreted them in these ways you've posted above. Sure, it may be a popular current spin... with which values I also find disgusting. Yet, it may also be a convincing lie perpetuated by those who prostitute its significance for their own agendas. IMO, it can be equated with the commonly perpetrated belief that Hitler was an Atheist. Neither are true.

 

Also, many of other religions, such as Buddhist and Islamic, see these teachings of Jesus differently than you've attributed them, and they respect their own interpretations of these teachings, yet do not refer to themselves as Christians. I understand and agree with your frustrations of the fundamentalist religous right, yet not all people see Jesus as these narrow minded people do.

Wonderfully said. But yet, I am hopeful that the current spin is going in the other direction. I can only hope so. The bible isn't going anywhere, so I would rather see more people like Fly than Daniel.

[Mythra]

There's nothing wrong with that approach. A person like that wouldn't be going around trying to sell that formula to anyone else, nor threatening them with eternal torment if they didn't believe as they did, nor would they say it's the ONLY way.

 

Exactly. How "loving" is it to say that anyone who doesn't think like you do is your enemy? And that your enemies should be brought before you and slain?

 

I'm not the most loving guy in the world, but I do believe that everyone has the right to think whatever the hell they want. Even if it's completely fucked up.

 

Not so with the "Jesus concept" or christianity. If they had their way, we'd have a religious police state, where anyone who thinks independently is shunned or worse. The dark ages were the glory days of christianity. THAT'S the LEGACY.

[NotBlinded]

There's nothing wrong with that approach. A person like that wouldn't be going around trying to sell that formula to anyone else, nor threatening them with eternal torment if they didn't believe as they did, nor would they say it's the ONLY way.

 

Exactly. How "loving" is it to say that anyone who doesn't think like you do is your enemy? And that your enemies should be brought before you and slain?

 

I'm not the most loving guy in the world, but I do believe that everyone has the right to think whatever the hell they want. Even if it's completely fucked up.

 

Not so with the "Jesus concept" or christianity. If they had their way, we'd have a religious police state, where anyone who thinks independently is shunned or worse. The dark ages were the glory days of christianity. THAT'S the LEGACY.

What if the original intent, as it was in ancient times, was for it to be taken as an allegory? It might just mean that the bad thoughts (enemies) that arrise inside oneself should be dismissed or forgotten (slain). What if we have just lost the ability to look at a story and see what the moral is? No one believes mother goose was real, but yet there are morals to the stories.

[crazy-tiger]

I can understand the insistence of taking it all as it is if it were to be taken literally or if it were written by a single author. The bible wasn't written by a single author and the original Christians didn't take it literally, so I don't see the harm in taking out the parts that are bad and building a new photo (or restoring an old one) because of the history of it. That is exactly what one must do in order to find meaning in it. What is wrong with quote mining Jesus (regardless of whether or not he was real) when no one knows exactly what Jesus said for sure? Maybe Fly should say that he loves the philosophy behind that saying attributed to Jesus and not the other ones that are attributed to Jesus. He has already said that he doesn't think that Jesus was the son of god and it doesn't matter to him. Is that what the problem is...one of specificity?

Taking parts out of the message and saying that what's left is the message is a bit much... See, what Fly did was not build a new message, he just removed the bits that were "icky" and said that what remains was the message in the first place.

 

I wouldn't have had a problem if he'd said "here... this is what I get and it's based on part of the teachings of Jesus"... that's perfectly fine. But, no... he had to say "this is what I get and it's ALL that Jesus taught"

 

 

 

Oh, and quote-mining? Makes no difference whether we know what he said or not... (though that casts doubt on there being and message in the first place)

What we do know is it's dishonest to take what is said and twist it/chop bits off it so that it says something else... (in this case, dropping parts of the NT so that the NT says something else)

[NotBlinded]

I can understand the insistence of taking it all as it is if it were to be taken literally or if it were written by a single author. The bible wasn't written by a single author and the original Christians didn't take it literally, so I don't see the harm in taking out the parts that are bad and building a new photo (or restoring an old one) because of the history of it. That is exactly what one must do in order to find meaning in it. What is wrong with quote mining Jesus (regardless of whether or not he was real) when no one knows exactly what Jesus said for sure? Maybe Fly should say that he loves the philosophy behind that saying attributed to Jesus and not the other ones that are attributed to Jesus. He has already said that he doesn't think that Jesus was the son of god and it doesn't matter to him. Is that what the problem is...one of specificity?

Taking parts out of the message and saying that what's left is the message is a bit much... See, what Fly did was not build a new message, he just removed the bits that were "icky" and said that what remains was the message in the first place.

 

I wouldn't have had a problem if he'd said "here... this is what I get and it's based on part of the teachings of Jesus"... that's perfectly fine. But, no... he had to say "this is what I get and it's ALL that Jesus taught"

 

 

 

Oh, and quote-mining? Makes no difference whether we know what he said or not... (though that casts doubt on there being and message in the first place)

What we do know is it's dishonest to take what is said and twist it/chop bits off it so that it says something else... (in this case, dropping parts of the NT so that the NT says something else)

Okay, CT, I understand now. Thanks!

[crazy-tiger]

What if the original intent, as it was in ancient times, was for it to be taken as an allegory? It might just mean that the bad thoughts (enemies) that arrise inside oneself should be dismissed or forgotten (slain). What if we have just lost the ability to look at a story and see what the moral is? No one believes mother goose was real, but yet there are morals to the stories.

The original intent is not the same as the legacy...

 

The original intent of Communism was to make everyone equal, create an utopian society and eliminate the rule of the few...

The legacy of Communism is millions dead, a society that failed and a dictatorial, blood-thirsty rule of the privaliged few.

 

 

Even if there are morals in the story, even if the intent was for them to be allegorical, the legacy is much different and now intrinsicly bound to it...

It's no longer possible to extract the good without having to rewrite history.

 

IMOHO, that is...

 

Okay, CT, I understand now. Thanks!

Just out of interest... was I not being clear on this before?

 

Sometimes I feel as if I'm not managing to get out what's in my head clearly, and I wonder if that's what's happened here...

[NotBlinded]

What if the original intent, as it was in ancient times, was for it to be taken as an allegory? It might just mean that the bad thoughts (enemies) that arrise inside oneself should be dismissed or forgotten (slain). What if we have just lost the ability to look at a story and see what the moral is? No one believes mother goose was real, but yet there are morals to the stories.

The original intent is not the same as the legacy...

 

The original intent of Communism was to make everyone equal, create an utopian society and eliminate the rule of the few...

The legacy of Communism is millions dead, a society that failed and a dictatorial, blood-thirsty rule of the privaliged few.

 

 

Even if there are morals in the story, even if the intent was for them to be allegorical, the legacy is much different and now intrinsicly bound to it...

It's no longer possible to extract the good without having to rewrite history.

 

IMOHO, that is...

Oh crap yes! I agree 100%.

 

But , I don't think it's going to die out so we can only hope to grab the good thereby forcing the legacy into the waste of the past where Communism is where it belongs while a new, and hopefully more improved, legacy replaces it.

[NotBlinded]

Just out of interest... was I not being clear on this before?

 

Sometimes I feel as if I'm not managing to get out what's in my head clearly, and I wonder if that's what's happened here...

Actuall, now that I go back and look here and here you explain yourself fine. I just think there may have been a communication gap between the two of you because I can see Fly saying this, "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?" and I understood him to be saying just what you told me above about the legacy of Christianity. I guess it didn't sink in (with me) that Fly was saying that love was all Jesus taught. He did originally though when he said that Jesus was all about the love. A detail I missed, although I still don't know if that is what he really intends.

 

I was looking at the bible in a more abstract level, because I now see all the religions springing forth from the same idea...as pointer to a higher level of understanding (god, consciousness, whatever) and the only way one can understand the abstract is through stories turned inward. In this case, all the crap that has nothing to do with the inner journey of the individual to understand the abstract, is just stuff that was added to gain control and this should not even be used. This horendous stuff the church added needs to die and the only way I see that happening is by allowing people to choose the good stuff. I have hopes that someday the good stuff will be looked at just like any other knowledge that deals with a spiritual journey, as a way to understand oneself.

[Bodhi-in-Training]

What if the original intent, as it was in ancient times, was for it to be taken as an allegory? It might just mean that the bad thoughts (enemies) that arrise inside oneself should be dismissed or forgotten (slain). What if we have just lost the ability to look at a story and see what the moral is? No one believes mother goose was real, but yet there are morals to the stories.

 

But then why not just say that? Buddha had no problem clearly stating things like that 500 years prior, why wouldn't Jesus if that was the intent of the message?

[crazy-tiger]

But , I don't think it's going to die out so we can only hope to grab the good thereby forcing the legacy into the waste of the past where Communism is where it belongs while a new, and hopefully more improved, legacy replaces it.

Hmm... I'm not sure said legacy can be replaced...

 

The legacy will always be there... sure, it might change so that the current one won't be such a "big thing", as it were, but if it keeps the same base it's gonna include it's history.

 

Keeping that legacy might not be such a bad thing anyway... if it's looked upon as "we tried this way of thinking and it didn't work" then such a legacy can be avoided in the future, but... they'd have to keep it out rather than ignoring it and shoving it down the back of the sofa, and I don't think people would be comfortable with that.

 

 

Maybe that's the final step Christians need to take... hell, everyone probably needs to take it. The step where you admit that you got it wrong and you need to fix it... where you admit that you're not always right.

Maybe that's the message in the Bible... that nothing is right all the time.

 

Ironically, if that's true, then they chose the wrong way to do it...

[NotBlinded]

What if the original intent, as it was in ancient times, was for it to be taken as an allegory? It might just mean that the bad thoughts (enemies) that arrise inside oneself should be dismissed or forgotten (slain). What if we have just lost the ability to look at a story and see what the moral is? No one believes mother goose was real, but yet there are morals to the stories.

 

But then why not just say that? Buddha had no problem clearly stating things like that 500 years prior, why wouldn't Jesus if that was the intent of the message?

He probably did. Buddha didn't have the church screwing with his words. When I looked at some of parables in this way, they make perfect sense. I am just scratching the surface of this line of thinking so I can in no way claim this as absolute, but it made my understanding of the commonalities between all relgions fit together. No wonder there is so much in common with Horus and other groups at the time, they were all ways to understand the abstract. There is nothing unique about any of them.

 

But , I don't think it's going to die out so we can only hope to grab the good thereby forcing the legacy into the waste of the past where Communism is where it belongs while a new, and hopefully more improved, legacy replaces it.

Hmm... I'm not sure said legacy can be replaced...

 

The legacy will always be there... sure, it might change so that the current one won't be such a "big thing", as it were, but if it keeps the same base it's gonna include it's history.

 

Keeping that legacy might not be such a bad thing anyway... if it's looked upon as "we tried this way of thinking and it didn't work" then such a legacy can be avoided in the future, but... they'd have to keep it out rather than ignoring it and shoving it down the back of the sofa, and I don't think people would be comfortable with that.

 

 

Maybe that's the final step Christians need to take... hell, everyone probably needs to take it. The step where you admit that you got it wrong and you need to fix it... where you admit that you're not always right.

Maybe that's the message in the Bible... that nothing is right all the time.

 

Ironically, if that's true, then they chose the wrong way to do it...

Amen! Oops...hehehehe

[Amanda]

Hmm... I'm not sure said legacy can be replaced...

 

The legacy will always be there... sure, it might change so that the current one won't be such a "big thing", as it were, but if it keeps the same base it's gonna include it's history.

 

Keeping that legacy might not be such a bad thing anyway... if it's looked upon as "we tried this way of thinking and it didn't work" then such a legacy can be avoided in the future, but... they'd have to keep it out rather than ignoring it and shoving it down the back of the sofa, and I don't think people would be comfortable with that.

 

Crazy Tiger, I recently saw a documentary on Santa Claus. It was very interesting to find the 'true' story of this very real person, St. Nicholas.

 

It seems that a German mythological character, Kris Kringel, was superimposed onto St. Nicholas, initially regarding the holiday celebration in honor of this saint. Kris Kringel was a man that traveled by sleigh through the air, around the world... noting who was good, and who was bad. The integration of these two, plus throughout the ages an additional storytelling added onto this popularized conglomeration. Much of it has been for commercial benefits, and has resulted to what is thought of as our 'legacy' of Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, as complete fantasy!

 

It seems this is a shame, IMO, as the original story, according to this documentary's biography of St. Nicholas, is really a much more endearing and a more valuable portrait than the commercially driven end result we have now. It seems a travesty that the legacy of St. Nicholas, is to have lost its original intent and 'true' essence of this really impressive person. *sigh*

 

Could it be that something similar has happened to the popularized current projection, in the west, of this man we have come to know as 'Jesus'?

[crazy-tiger]

Could it be that something similar has happened to the popularized current projection, in the west, of this man we have come to know as 'Jesus'?

Most likely... though whether the change has been for the better is debatable. (isn't it always... )

 

 

I prefer the idea that 'Jesus' was just an ordinary man who was made the icon/scapegoat of a new religion, a religion that had some good bits to entice people into being followers and bad bits to scare them into staying.

 

Was he really called Jesus? We don't know... (actually, since that's an Anglicized form of his name, I can say for sure he was not called Jesus ) Was he a virgin birth? Very unlikely, if not fiction... (considering just how many myths include virgin births, it's like it was a generic requirement for the time ) Did he teach what we are told he taught? We'll never know...

 

 

 

Personally, if I'm right, I feel sorry for whoever he was... all he's remembered for is what he never was in the first place. To me, it's like wiping out his life like he never existed.

[Mythra]

Personally, if I'm right, I feel sorry for whoever he was... all he's remembered for is what he never was in the first place. To me, it's like wiping out his life like he never existed.

 

Good luck if you can find a man at the beginning of it all. From all of the studying I've done, I find a collection of "wisdom" sayings, loose borrowing of concepts from the Cynics, the Essenes, Plato, the mystery religions, and Paul's visions and dreams.

[crazy-tiger]

Personally, if I'm right, I feel sorry for whoever he was... all he's remembered for is what he never was in the first place. To me, it's like wiping out his life like he never existed.

 

Good luck if you can find a man at the beginning of it all. From all of the studying I've done, I find a collection of "wisdom" sayings, loose borrowing of concepts from the Cynics, the Essenes, Plato, the mystery religions, and Paul's visions and dreams.

Yeah... it is a bit of an impossible task, innit? I mean, we don't know what he looked like, what his age was, how he spent the vast majority of his life, who his parents were, (sure, we've got a couple of names in the Bible... but just who were Mary and Joseph? No-one knows) when he was born... anything.

 

He could have been any person from the known world, just used as a "body" to hang the stories on... and most likely was.

 

 

Even the thought of it annoys me... turning someone into the equivalent of coat stand.

[Fly]

btw, crazy-tiger . . . I don't mind being called a Christian. I hold many Christian values at heart. Even so, I don't consider myself to be one. Just because I have an admiration for Jesus, and derive many of my values from Christian texts, doesn't make me a Christian. I'm a seeker, and I look for anwers; that is all . . .

Are you seeking the message that Jesus taught, or just the bits of it that you like? If it's just the bits you like, are you really looking for answers?

 

You see... not many seekers would deliberately cut off part of the area they are searching... those that do, are looking for answers that agree with what they've already decided.

As such, they're not really seeking anything... except a way to justify what they believe.

 

 

 

You said it yourself... you ignore the negative because it isn't right. But it isn't right because it doesn't agree with what you believe, which is that Jesus's whole message was one of love. (which, incidentally, has been shown to be wrong...)

The only answer you're going to get is the answer you want to get, because you're ignoring any other answer... Why do you ignore them? Because they're just not right. Why are they not right? Because they don't agree with the answer you want.

 

Now... are you going to look for answers in ALL of the message, or are you going to ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas of what the answers should be?

 

Sure, I have preconcieved notions as to what I believe to be right, or good. Like I mentioned before, I think most of the Bible is a fairy tale gone awry. I certainly pick and choose what I take from it. Even so, I'm a seeker by nature which is why I don't simply accept the status quo. You understand? If it makes sense and it agrees with my values, then I can embrace it. If not, I discard, which is what I think everyone should do. We all have a concept of what is right, and wrong. We don't need someone telling us, or rather force feeding us with thier take on it.

 

I find the legacy of Christianity to be different than my take on the legacy of Jesus. I'm not pushing my beliefs on you all, I'm merely stating my opinions. It seems that most disagree with me, though. Perhaps, I should have used a different word. Nevertheless, I used the word 'legacy'.

 

I guess in the end, I pick and choose, and attribute only the good to Jesus. My mistake! You can hate him if you like, but he had very good qualities, which is what I focus on. I can overlook his shortcomings. Hell, we all have them. I think the good outwieghs the bad by a landslide, therefore relesing him from the negative aspects of his life. But thats just me . . . I like the man!