jsa

It is amusing that Christians claim that the bible or parts of it are metaphorical when it suits them. The bible wasn't written as a metaphor. It was written as the law of Moses. The new testament is supposed to be an account of the teachings of Jesus. there is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. The Romans were meticulous record keepers. All documents that claimed Jesus' existence have been proven to be fraudulent. One carbon dated to somewhere around year 1000. Claiming something as a law and then changing your mind and calling it a metaphor when society starts coming around and sees it as barbaric is just a way to keep the religion alive. A lot of money is tide up in Judaism and Christianity. If you truly are a believer who are you to dispute the words of your god? Some would call it a blasphemy.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez

This is something I think everyone should know, or at least be open to its possibility. You're right; there was no historical record of Jesus until at least 100 years after his birth, and well known writers of the area during the days of 'Jesus' have never mentioned him in their writings. With that said, people can take Jesus metaphorically, and try to mimic his characters' actions, because he was a pretty cool guy. Oh yeah, also, I wouldn't go around telling Christians this, because it will only lead to arguing. It's best to let people find this stuff on their own.

I agree with you Inuzuka that 'unconditional love' doesn't really exist between humans. Even a mother loves her kids under the condition that 'they are her kids.' Before they were reincarnated as her kids, they might have been some old man living 500 miles away that she never met, and never cared about. She didn't love them then. However, the universe unconditionally loves every living and nonliving thing. If you do terrible things, at the end of this life, you'll die, and many years later be reincarnated and have a chance to relearn your lessons that you failed to grasp in your previous life. The universe loves unconditionally, people-not so much

__________________
Hello, my name is Luka. I live on the 2nd floor.

SATCHMO

The first New testament text was dated @ A.D. 60, about 27 years after Jesus' death, and that was the book of Acts, not a gospel, but an account of the pentacost and the formation of the early church. It is largely attributed to the same author who penned the synoptic gospel of Luke. the first of the four synoptic gospels to be written was the book of Mark (largely regarded to be the most historically accurate) was written @ A.D. 70, about 37 years after Jesus' death.
To say that "there was no historical record of Jesus until at least 100 years after his birth [which is false], and well known writers of the area during the days of 'Jesus' have never mentioned him in their writings." is a moot point. The illiteracy rate in Jerusalem around the time of Jesus' ministry is estimated at about 97% with the remaining 3% being composed of the political/religious elite and the scribes who's jobs were largely to record their doctrine. It was this same ruling class, namely the pharisees, the Saduccees, and various representatives of the Roman Empire who perceived the message and the movement Jesus was responsible for as a threat. It was only until the early christian church had moved far enough away from the epicenter of the sphere of the Roman Empire's influence and the influence of the Judaic ruling class that had mandated the death of any of Jesus' known followers that it was safe to have any historical (or otherwise) accounts of jesus' life, death, and ministry put in writing for the sake of posterity. So no, you really couldn't walk into a Barnes & Noble and pick up a book on Jesus in those days.

Ironically, this is the very same lesson that Jesus came to teach humanity (a strong argument could be made for or against reincarnation, but by omission only. In terms of meta/quantum physics and cognitive theory the concept of reincarnation is a very slippery slope)

On a personal note it makes me angry that I cannot call myself a Christian, because the term Christian has been franchised by a political/religious organization that has clothed his spirit in the bleached white sterile doctrine and dogma of their own creation.

Jesus did not come this world to create Christianity, (He was born Jewish, lived as a Jew, and died a Jew). Contemporary Christianity is more closely aligned with the staunch legalism that defined the religious power of his day. One that sought to put an end to a message that threatened its power. As a matter of fact, the majority of Christian teaching and all of its doctrine is vehemently antithetical to the message that he boldly stood for and courageously died for, not as a means of atoning for our sins, but as a means of showing us how to live without fear in the full grace and love of our own divinity.

Jesus met his death because to run cowardly away from it would contradict everything that he believed in and was trying to teach his disciples and humanity. He was a subversive who didn't cower in the shadow of the power structure that intimidatingly loomed over him. We could learn a lot from someone like that.

If you want to see the true essence of Jesus' teachings read his Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5-7 (preferably a version a little more contemporary than the King James version) It contains the essence of what he was trying to get through to people, and it was THIS message, not the one expounded by the doctrine of conventional Christianity, that the early church was trying to spread. It was only until the message fell into the hands of the Roman Empire and its use as a away of promoting fear and compliance against the peasant class was wholeheartedly taken advantage of that we saw the beginnings of what we now know as Christianity.

It's a fucking shame and a sham.

boo boo

So Satch, do you consider yourself a Unitarian?

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

SATCHMO

Yes, very much so.

boo boo

I usually refer to myself as an agnostic.

But I'd like to believe there's some spiritual force of some kind out there, It's not uncommon for me to reference god or thank god for good fortune.

I don't believe in divine intervention or fate or anything like that and I think creationism is just idiotic. But I have a hard time believing that existance is just a big fluke, I think there had to be an intelligent force behind it, so I'm probably more of a deist than anything.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Astronomer

This is exactly what I believe, too.

SATCHMO

A much underused classifiction of belief is ignostic. If to be agnostic is to say "I don't know if god exists", and to be Atheistic is to say "I don't believe god doesn't exists", then ignosticism is equivalent to saying "what do you mean when you say god?". This is where I fall under. All my arguments for or against the existent of God are variant upon the definition of God that one is arguing for or against. SOme I deas of what God is I believe in and some I don't, and to a greater degree I know that's subjective on my part.

boo boo

Well I don't believe god is some old guy with a beard who spends most of his free time smiting innocent people because the gays did something to piss him off.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

sleepy jack

You don't believe in divine intervention but you thank god for things? Makes perfect sense...

__________________