Jesus is...

[karlhenning]

True!

I just wanted to see folks' opinions.

What I could have told you is, quite a few people's opinion is, that anytime is time to heap scorn on people faith.  But, now, you needn't take my word for it.

[Dr. Dread]

What I could have told you is, quite a few people's opinion is, that anytime is time to heap scorn on people faith.  But, now, you needn't take my word for it.

Right! That's my last religious thread.

Unless I forget not to post them.  

P.S. I would lock it but locking threads is not for me.

[Hollywood]

I chose Other on the poll choices. I like to tell people that "Jesus is my cousin." This usually makes people look at me totally confused by my answer until I tell them that the Hollywood actor Jim Caviezel is my cousin and he portrayed Jesus in the film "The Passion of the Christ".

[Elgarian]

The credulousness of ancient peoples can't testify to the truth of beliefs for us without lowering our standards to match theirs.

It's a good thing that here on GMG we don't have to lower our standards to match those ancient credulous bunglers, Plato and Socrates. Imagine that. Phew.

like believers today the belief and not some purported fact of the matter was the important thing. True by belief means the belief is the fact. Other bothersome facts, if they appear, are to be ignored or explained away. Objectivity, when it appears, is opposition, so it can be discounted.

This belongs in the straw man enclosure. See post #20 in the thread at the link following, which addresses these points when you made them before, in this thread: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13091.20.html).

[Elgarian]

And ridicule is necessary. The idea that you shouldn't ridicule these silly notions is to coddle the people who hold them, as though they were abnormally stupid or childlike.

I admire your posts because you present a consistent approach to the world which is brave and honest in intent and which represents a sincere attempt to make sense of the existential situation that faces all of us. It's brave and honest, but it's not unchallengeable. There are often philosophical objections to the arguments you put forward that have a significant bearing on your conclusions, and sometimes you seem to ignore them as if they don't matter.

Given that, it seems to me very sad that you make the statement I've quoted above, and it seems  inconsistent with the general tone of your posts. The person who decides (on grounds that seem adequate to him) that God exists is neither more nor less ridiculous than the person who doesn't see the philosophical flaws in his arguments. I wish you'd retract that statement. Maybe it was just a burst of bad temper? It gets to us all sometimes.

[david johnson]

Jesus' existence as both a man and the Son neither depends upon my faith nor is destroyed by the scoffing of non-believers. 

dj
christian

[Catison]

Jesus' existence as both a man and the Son neither depends upon my faith nor is destroyed by the scoffing of non-believers. 

dj
christian

Someone here has a quote from Churchill in his signature.  It is one of those remarkable things that if the Christian God really exists, it doesn't matter how many arguments you come up with against His existence, at the end of the day, there He is.

[Florestan]

A swell guy. Maybe. I don't even really think so, though. That stuff about Hell was morally repugnant. So was the stuff about flames and unbelievers, the horrific name-calling he engaged in with pettier (or equally petty?) rivals, and the central doctrine of personal salvation, ie, saving yourself. As Walter Kaufmann puts it in The Faith of a Heretic, "The perspective of the [Old Testament] prophets is reversed. They, too, had taught humility and love, but not this preoccupation with oneself. The accent had been on the neighbor and the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and the poor. Social injustice cried out to be rectified and was no less real because it meant a lack of love and a corruption of the heart. Man was told to love others and to treat them justly - for their sake, not for his own, [or] to escape damnation. To the Jesus of the Gospels, social injustice as such is of no concern. Heaven and hell-fire have been moved to the center." (p. 208)

More: "The Jesus of the Gospels appeals to each man's self-interest. This may strike some modern readers as paradoxical because liberal Protestantism has persuaded millions that the essence of Christianity is altruism and self-sacrifice. But our analysis [ie Kaufmann's view] may help to explain why so many people take it for granted that morality depends on the belief in God and immortality. It is not uncommon to hear people admit that if they lost their belief in a life after death, no reason would remain for them to be moral. In fact, they cannot see why anyone lacking this belief should be moral; and this accounts in large measure for the widespread horror of atheism." Why? Why do we consider morality as a question of "will I be rewarded or punished for this?" [that's not a quote from Kaufmann, but the next bit is] Because "In the Gospels, one is to lose oneself only to find oneself....In what truly matters, we are expected to see to our own interest. The "reward" is always my reward. Really sacrificing oneself for the sake of others, for the chance, uncertain as such matters are in this world, that our neighbor or society might benefit - or foregoing one's own salvation for the salvation of others, as Mahayana Buddhism says its saints do - the Gospels do not ask of man." (p. 211) Or, I should rephrase, they do not ask other than of one single man two thousand years dead.

To misrepresent Christ's teaching by turning it upside down and then claim it's morally repulsive --- as this Kaufmann do --- is either the top of disingenuity or of stupidity.

[karlhenning]

. . . Given that, it seems to me very sad that you make the statement I've quoted above, and it seems inconsistent with the general tone of your posts.

My new friend, you shall have occasion to learn, I am sure, that nothing which Ernie (drogulus) posts is more consistent with his general tone (when the topic is religion) than his remark, And ridicule is necessary.

[Dr. Dread]

Someone voted that I am, in fact, Jesus.  0:)

[karlhenning]

Someone voted that I am, in fact, Jesus.  0:)

Dios mio, man!

[Dr. Dread]

Perhaps I am the most Jesus-like. 

[DavidRoss]

Perhaps I am the most Jesus-like. 

Do you roll?

[Dr. Dread]

Do you roll?

I don't like weed.

[DavidRoss]

I don't like weed.

Then it's not the munchies....

[Brian]

To misrepresent Christ's teaching by turning it upside down and then claim it's morally repulsive --- as this Kaufmann do --- is either the top of disingenuity or of stupidity.

But the way I see it, the word of Christ is about being saved. It's not just me who sees things that way:

"This car may be trash, but my treasure is in heaven" - bumper sticker
"You can pray something like this: 'Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and have displeased You in many ways. I believe You died for my sin, and only through faith in Your death and resurrection can I be forgiven. I want to turn from my sin and ask You to come into my life as my Savior and Lord. From this day on, I will follow You by living a life that pleases You. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for saving me. Amen.' " - LifeWay Christian Bookstore chain
"The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association believes that all men everywhere are lost and face the judgment of God, and need to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through His shed blood on the cross." - [you know]
"This is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Even if Christianity is not at some level about being saved and getting to heaven, it does feature a number of evil figures and evil places ("Christians believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of the World" - C.S. Lewis) ("Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat" - Matthew 7:13) ("If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." - John 15:6) ("The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:41-2) that I do not consider myself to be totally out of line when I say I find some elements of Jesus' teachings to be at most morally repulsive and at least something I can disagree about.

[Brian]

Then it's not the munchies....

Hey, he's tall and big-boned! 

[Joe Barron]

After carefully reading all the religious threads available on GMG, I have decided to worship...

I kept this very same poster on the door to my bedroom when I was a boy. I am thinking I should return to the comforting beliefs of my youth.

I am uncomfortable with words like propaganda and hoaxing and credulousness in describing the early church. I don't think that's what went on, and the idea presents a problem for nonbelievers like me. It really doesn't make sense to die for something you believe to be a lie. But you don't need to have witnessed something to believe in its truth, or even much evidence, if the matter is important enough. Catison is right about one thing: Christianity fulfilled a real spiritual need among early believers. My contention is that the stories of the physical resurrection came later, to reify the initial hopes of eternal life, however that might have been defined.

Another interesting point came out during the publicity surrounding the publication Gospel of Judas. According to Elaine Pagels, there was real dissension in the early church about whether God required, or even expected, early Christians to martyr themselves. Some believed that they should prove themselves, as Jesus and the early apostles were said to have done. Others (represented in the Judas Gospel), contended that a loving God would not want his followers to suffer. This faction apparently lost. There's a psychology at work here that quibbles over the reliability of the Gospels don't even begin to address.

This has become a great discussion, but I've been arguing about religion for thirty-five years, and the truth is, I've never changed anyone's mind. At times like this the best thing to do is follow Charles Ives's wonderful advice: shake hands, shut up, then walk up the mountainside to view the firmament.

[Dr. Dread]

This has become a great discussion, but I've been arguing about religion for thirty-five years, and the truth is, I've never changed anyone's mind. At time like this the best thing to do is follow Charles Ives's wonderful advice: shake hands, shut up, then walk up the mountainside to view the firmament.

Quoted for wisdom.

[karlhenning]

Beats the ordure out of And ridicule is necessary.