"How Jesus Became Christ"

[politicalboy]

In response to Asheleyjohnson. Just a little harmless counsel. There is no use to be a christian, to become a christian you ask the lord to come into your hear (BEHOLD I STAND AT THE DOOR AND KNOCK) When you make the choice to open that door he enters, always there, never leaving, so a better description of your current status would either be a carnal christian or a back slid christian, there is no use to be a christian, deny it if you will, but it will come to bear for you sooner than later, that for you is a wonderfull thing.

[RaccaFracca]

Here is an amazing site with information that may help answer a few question for those who truly are searching for them.

GodandScience.org

[Hane]

Ah yes, TxNavy, who knows more than everyone about everything.

That's the first correct thing you've said since you started posting here. Congratulations!!! We finally agree on something! [img]graemlins/Laughing.gif[/img]

The rest of your post reeks of envy and not just for Tx. Must be from all the fossa openings he's given you.

Pull the wedgie out now - it's making you even more bitter. I do think you are a decent person, curious, but your last post was just too obnoxious.

[AAnderson]

Just a little point of fact. Darwin was not an atheist. He thought himself a religious person beholden to a Creator who started the process. Even in the dark ages (the early '70s), we Bio majors were taught that the theory was full of holes. Young scientists were exhorted to go forth and refine it or replace it with something new. Given the eons between events, it's pretty close to impossible to prove or disprove his theories, and I sure don't expect to see anything definitive in my life time. In the end, the details of how we came to exist aren't as important as how we utilize the time we are given. With or without Darwin, it all comes back to faith.

[AshleyJonson]

Originally posted by Freak4Him91:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yhe evolution is much more likely to have actually taken place and with today's science, who could deny it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Just look at Darwin and Lamarcks theories, and they are over a hundred years old.

The main word in your last post is theroies.

Take a clock for example, if you smashed it up and put the pieces in box and shook it up and then opened up the box, what would you have? 100% of the time you would still have all the pieces of the clock, but they would not be a working clock. And the big bang theory is just like a tornado going through a junkyard and cleaning it up. It can't happen!

Many places all over the world proves that there was a world wide flood which is clearly stated in the bible in Genesis. </font>[/quote]I find it a bit ironic that you say that the big bang theori is missing parts to make it believable while you are religious. Religion is all about belief and theori and has nothing to do with facts.

[Buckley]

I also share Coffin's view of Jesus. I believe Christ is one answer, but not the sole answer. I believe he is a pointer to the truth, but not the only route. When he is used as a heavenly door guard, like the bouncers who keep the riff raff out of fancy nightclubs, he is misused, IMO.


"And, of course, Jesus is primary. God is not confined to Christ, but to Christians God is most essentially defined by Christ. In other words, when we see Christ empowering the poor, scorning the powerful, healing the world's hurt, we are seeing transparently the power of God at work. How do we know what to pray? "Through Jesus Christ our Lord" -- that's why all Christian prayers end that way. We are confident about the things we pray for through Jesus Christ our Lord. That's not to say that Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who was a great mentor in my life, didn't see the same things about God from the perspective of the Talmud and the Torah and incredible Jewish literature throughout the ages."

Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." So, Jesus' own words contradict what you have said about him. It would be more consistent for you to consider him a lunatic than to call him "a pointer to the truth". Truth is, either Jesus is the truth, or a lunatic, or the accounts we have of his sayings are not accurate (which is highly unlikely considering the quality of the primary sources we have concerning his life).

All religion is worth is what it means to us as individuals. Call mine Curiousanity if you want. That's fine. If you'd rather follow TxNavyism, you certainly should. But your God doesn't speak to me.

But all religion merely boils down to what we personally choose to believe is the will or the existance or form of God and reality. Organized religion is just a tool towards that.

The good aspect of religions is the communities they allow over shared basic human experience and search fopr answers to the big questions.

The useless part is the exclusive nonsense that says "I know The Only Truth and you're going to hell because you don't agree with my brand of dogma."

This is funny, on the one hand you speak about "exclusive nonsense," while on the other hand you are excluding every major religion (except of course, for your own). Ravi Zacharias once said "truth by its nature excludes." If what you said above is true, than it is self-contradictory-how can you pretend to speak against exclusivity and yet exclude so many religions (not to mention the very idea of true truth) all at once? Funny.

Moreover, it would be nice if we made our own truth and religion...wait a minute, no it wouldn't. That would not be nice at all. I think we've seen terrible examples of mankind trying to make his own religion in the past century. But, I digress. Religion does not boil down to what we personally choose to believe. You are ignoring the weight of evidence supporting Christianity's truth claims. Paul said it well in 1 Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Christianity is utterly dependant on an historical event. If Christ was not physically raised in real space-time, then the whole religion is useless. It is not based on my feelings or on what I choose to believe, but on the truth of an historic event.

I find it a bit ironic that you say that the big bang theori is missing parts to make it believable while you are religious. Religion is all about belief and theori and has nothing to do with facts.

I listed several facts in my post above yet you have ignored them, ergo you have no basis for this claim. Moreover, a little earlier I asked you to present some facts supporting evolution, and you have failed to do that as well.

[Buckley]

Originally posted by Hane:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Ah yes, TxNavy, who knows more than everyone about everything.

That's the first correct thing you've said since you started posting here. Congratulations!!! We finally agree on something! [img]graemlins/Laughing.gif[/img]

The rest of your post reeks of envy and not just for Tx. Must be from all the fossa openings he's given you.

Pull the wedgie out now - it's making you even more bitter. I do think you are a decent person, curious, but your last post was just too obnoxious. </font>[/quote]Curious is not the only one who is jealous of TXNavy-I wish I could borrow his mind and reasoning capabilities for a few weeks.

[curious]

Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." So, Jesus' own words contradict what you have said about him. It would be more consistent for you to consider him a lunatic than to call him "a pointer to the truth". Truth is, either Jesus is the truth, or a lunatic, or the accounts we have of his sayings are not accurate (which is highly unlikely considering the quality of the primary sources we have concerning his life). .... You are ignoring the weight of evidence supporting Christianity's truth claims. Paul said it well in 1 Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Christianity is utterly dependant on an historical event. If Christ was not physically raised in real space-time, then the whole religion is useless. It is not based on my feelings or on what I choose to believe, but on the truth of an historic event.

And that in a nutshell is why I don't call myself a Christian, when it's put into those terms. I don't buy it.

However, I don't see it in such eitehr/or terms. I don't see being skeptical or uncertain about that aspect as having to reject the underlying truths he preached or the core values and beliefs of Christianity.

I'm not alone in that. Like most religions, there is an underlying truth, but the specifics are very open to individual interpretation, based on which HUMAN version of the message one chooses to believe. One can take a narrow and very literal minded interpretation, based on one set of believers. Or one can accept broader ones, which are also plentiful.

It is possible to see his preaching and experiences in different ways -- strictly as as a metaphor, or as a reality and message that is true but broad or as a very specific and literal set of demands.

For example, some Jews believe that when Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." he was not speaking of himself, but using the pronoun "I" to represent traditionbal Jewish teachings and the word of God.

If you want to go with more literal minded interpretations, that's fine. However, that does not negate the sincerity or validity of those who believe in different interpretations that are broader.

This is funny, on the one hand you speak about "exclusive nonsense," while on the other hand you are excluding every major religion (except of course, for your own). Ravi Zacharias once said "truth by its nature excludes." If what you said above is true, than it is self-contradictory-how can you pretend to speak against exclusivity and yet exclude so many religions (not to mention the very idea of true truth) all at once? ...

No I'm not excluding all religions. What I object to are those forms of religion that attempt to force people into very specific categories, or to use religion as a secular tool.....Maybe it's my libertarian side, but I believe in tolerant "live and let live" religious values.

And that isn't just cranky Curious speaking. There is an immense variety of religious options open to people. Many, many people -- including many religious ones -- believe that religion should be tolerant and forgiving rather than dogmatic, narrow and repressive. And many people who do not believe there is only one "true" religion or spiritual path.

Here's my personal view of it. IMO there is a basic force of creative energy and love that we all came out of and are part of and will return to. Call that God, pure love, the Infinite We or whatever you want. Say we were created by it or emerged from it, whatever. I don't really care about the labeling.

I belive that here on earth, we are torn between a drive to remain a part of that primal reality of God/Unity and the contradictory and seperating drives of our own egos and the practical demands of the world.

When we lose that larger connection and succumb to the ego, we become isolated, alienated, selfish, mean, neurotic and ultimately alone. That could also be called sin and Hell.

But when we connect and identify with others, shift our focus outward and try to express positive action and altruism in the world we are connecting to that larger energy -- call it love, God, Nirvana, whatever.

All of us are wrestling with that basic dilemma every day and in every way. Each of us is on our own place on the spectrum between those two poles, and most of us are constantly shifting from one direction or the other. Ultimately, the more we move towards that sense of unity and identification the more we are "saved" and the happier we are.

That, IMO is the underlying truth of most accepted religious and spiritual belief systems. They differ on their specifics, but when you strip away the dogma, that, IMO, is the core truth they all share.

(The contradictiry view is that we are merely accidents of chemistry and biology, and there is no larger purpose whatsoever. You can call those who thoroughly believe that athiests, I suppose.
Personally, I don't necessarily believe that either. That's why I'm not an athiest or a nihilist. However, many athiests also see connection with the outside world as a form of salvation, so it is possible to be an athiest and also be committed top a totally moral code of principles.)

Religion does not boil down to what we personally choose to believe.
Moreover, it would be nice if we made our own truth and religion...wait a minute, no it wouldn't. That would not be nice at all. I think we've seen terrible examples of mankind trying to make his own religion in the past century.

As I said in a post above, what is positive about religion is that it provides a group framework to explore the meaning of reality, and celebrate that core of unity. It is also is a form of solace to those who want or need defined answers.

So I don't reject religion in those terms. However, what I do reject is the merging of the underlying spiritual values of religion with secular goals of power and control and division. That, IMO, contradicts the very essence of what religion should stand for.

Part of that is the dogma that claims to know specifically what "God" wants us to do in secular terms. Often those evolved not from some divine source but from the egos of those who use religion.

Some of the "rules" of religion are merely common sense, outlying worthwhile practical guidelines in a religious context. "Love thy neighbor" is both spiritually profound, while also being a practical message to prevent us from abusing and killing each other.

But often much of religion has been used for less noble purposes, from a selfish desire of individuals or groups to dominate and/or impose their own interests or cultural values on everyone else. That is a manipulation of fear and people's psychic desires that i object to.

For example, there are good reasons that sex should not be taken lightly -- health reasons and the fact that it does create life. So there are good reasons to teach people to be careful about it and not indulge in wanton promiscuity. However, making it a sin and putting the taint of hellfire on it, to me is a misuse of religion. Sexual responsibility should be dealt with on its own terms in the real world, not as a "you're going to hell if you commit adultery" way.

That is also why I object to the characterization of gays as sinners. There are obvious practical reasons why the whole world should not be gay. There would be no procreation and no more people. But no one can claim that it is the "will of God" to despise and cast out gays as sinners. Or even to try to "cure" them so they will become "saved" Christian heterosexuals....I say as long as there are enough straight people to perpetuate the species, it's nobody's business whether some people are gay.

Okay I've been rambling. But in a nutshell, I believe that God is large and infinetly tolerant. He lets us do good or screw up on our own, and he does not demand one specific path, as long as we get the basic message that "we're all in this together."

[Buckley]

And that in a nutshell is why I don't call myself a Christian, when it's put into those terms. I don't buy it.

However, I don't see it in such eitehr/or terms. I don't see being skeptical or uncertain about that aspect as having to reject the underlying truths he preached or the core values and beliefs of Christianity.

So, are you saying that either I accept your view or nothing else? [img]smile.gif[/img]

For example, some Jews believe that when Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." he was not speaking of himself, but using the pronoun "I" to represent traditionbal Jewish teachings and the word of God.

This is not a logical or satisfying interpretation, and I think you realize it. When I say "I" I mean me, not the Serbian orthodox religious tradition.

It is possible to see his praching and experiences strictly as as a metaphor, or as a reality and message that is true but broad or as a very specific and literal set of demands.

Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Christianity is fully dependant on actual historical events. If Christ did not died and rise again on the third day, then Christianity is meaningless. This has been taught from the very earliest days of our faith. Moreover, there is solid historical evidence that the ressurrection did happen. I don't care really what people think of dogmas and rituals-Christianity is not dependant on religious observances, feasts, karma, or on anything like that. We may want to construct things like this, but the truth is that Christianity would fall to pieces if you could ever prove conclusively that the ressurrection did not happen. And that will never be done, because it is simply too well attested by early, reliable sources.

Okay I've been rambling. But in a nutshell, I believe that God is large and infinetly tolerant. He lets us do good or screw up on our own, and he does not demand one specific path, as long as we get the basic message that "we're all in this together."

Sounds like a pretty specific path to me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But when we connect and identify with others, shift our focus outward and try to express positive action and altruism in the world we are connecting to that larger energy -- call it love, God, Nirvana, whatever.

Or we call it the Tower of Babel all over again.

[curious]

So, are you saying that either I accept your view or nothing else?

Nope. I can boil down my views on religion to one sentence: Whatever floats your boat...as long as you let me float mine in peace. [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img]

"Or we call it the Tower of Babel all over again."

The world is always going to be a Tower of Babel. especially when people stay locked into very specific defininitions of the one true path...I say "Viva la difference" if the residents of the Tower at least try to stay on the same basic page about getting along, tolerance and helping each other out. (And, ideally also discussing civilly and learning from and teaching each other while we're at it.)