John 14:26? “26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”
John 8:32? 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I agree with your premise, “I now believe that Christianity has pretty much hijacked the teachings of Jesus…”
However those cites do not support the notion that an internal spiritual journey is more important than a “belief in Christ.”
Quite the opposite. The preface to John 8:32 (John 8:31) says " 31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples…”
At John 14:26 (cited above) Jesus reminded them the the holy spirit would “remind you of everything I have said to you.”
Being a Christian requires a belief in Christ, and an earnest endeavor to follow both his teaching and examples both in spirit and in practice.
It is popular to characterize Christianity as a new-age spiritual, cerebral,
emotional, nebulous kind of thing—and certainly Christianity requires a deeply personal communion with both God and Christ. But Christ also had some very pointed direction that would identify his followers as to their conduct and behavior.
There is no shortage of people who speculate as to the veracity, historicity or accuracy of the bible.
I don’t know if I know of much “standard Christian theology.” Much of what you wrote in the section I quoted I agreed with—and had a biblical basis that can be supported. IMO, at some point, it deviated from the biblical accounts, and I was interested in how you came to those beliefs.
For the record, the NT doesn’t say anything about Jesus going to hell. As a matter of fact, Jesus said on the cross that he would be in Paradise that same day.
As to the rest if it, I agree with a lot of what others have said. The whole story is illogical in any number of ways. God becomes a human and commits suicide to save human beings from himself. Why not just skip all the pagentry and let everybody into Heaven as is? What is this “sin” stuff anyway? I don’t by the idea that humans are dirty and shameful and need forgiveness. I’ve never been able to get into that kind of masochistic, self-abasing aspect of Christianity. I’m not evil. My wife isn’t evil. My children aren’t evil. We have nothing to be forgiven for and if if we did need forgiveness, it wouldn’t be from God, it would be from whoever we’ve wronged. It’s none of God’s business and we owe him nothing.
What does God get out of a sacrifice? What does that accomplish? Why can’t God just skip the sacrifice and simply forgive people as they are, or better yet, just refrain from judging them at all. What gives him the right to judge me? He’s got some fucking nerve to never once show his face my whole life and then show up acting all offended when I die.
My final point is one that I’ve raised several times before around here. If God is actually going to set up such a ridiculous system for salvation, then why doesn’t he have the decency to offer a single shred of proof? If it’s so damn important to worship Jesus, then why doesn’t God take the time to let people know? How on earth is anyone supposed to know that Christianity is the One True Faith when there isn’t any more evidence to that effect than there is for the Heaven’s Gate cult or for Xenu or for the Invisible Pink Unicorn? How can a just God make salvation contingent on a wild ass guess? As I’ve said before, asking humans to pick Christianity to be saved is like asking them to guess what number he’s thinking between one and infinity. That correct guess is even further hindered by a sacred book which is filled with historical and factual innacuracies, contradictions and wildly inconsistent morality. Until God is willing to prove Christianity is true, then he has no moral right to make any demands of faith on anybody.
Since you don’t, I doubt you can really concieve believing.
Even if you don’t see Jesus as divine you might be able to appreciate a man who has the courage of his convictions. Someone who is true to the principles he believes in even if it cost him his life.
Mankind’s potential in the sense that if we all had the commitment to truth, kindness, the common brotherhood of man, that Jesus had a crapload of problems would be gone.
I’m actually quite dubious that Jesus anticipated or desired his own crucifixion. I think people just made that up after the fact to try to explain the inexplicable.
Well in 83 years a 1 year slice isn’t all that big. And it isn’t a book you sit down and read to the exclusion of everything else. At least not for me.
The story given out and the reaction to it is confusing in several areas… The death of Jesus wasn’t a death and, as I said, according to John is was all a setup anyway. As to the reaction I would point to continued anti Jewish propaganda and actions over the centuries. The excuse is that “the Jews killed Jesus.” I don’t know that “they” did, I thought the Romans did it (if it were actually done) and in any case even if “they” did, if “they” hadn’t then how would you know about salvation sins and eternal life?
In the Old Testament there is a commandment against killing but God commands the wholesale slaughter of entire populations including ugly women and children. The good looking women are saved as spoils of war. Deception is frowned upon but Jacob gained ascendancy over the older Esau by deception. David and Bathsheba committed the capital offense of adultery but the punishment was exacted upon the child and not the adulterers.
The bible does say without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Why, I don’t know. That was the purpose of sacrificing the lambs. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they started sin in the human race, and supposedly it infects all who are born, though not babies, for some reason, since they don’t know any better.
I suppose God could’ve just said Youre forgiven if you believe Jesus is my son. Instead, he had him die, and risen again, to show that those who are saved never really die forever.
It’s Luke 17
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
My question, and the way I think that much of Christianity has misunderstood what Christ taught, is what does belief in Christ mean? What did Jesus mean when he said believe in me? Much of Christianity teaches that everyone must see Jesus in the same light they do, the son of God who was crucified for our sins, in order to be saved. Are there others ways to believe in Jesus and his teachings?
Here I agree. Jesus stresses not only believeing but action and that inner spirit is the guide we can depend on.
No arguement here. My problem is that so many people who claim the Christian label do so by simply claiming belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior while their actions don’t reflect the inner spirit that Christ spoke of. To me belief in what Jesus taught means a constant desire to grow spiritually and as a person. To explore the depths of forgiveness, love, mercy and seek to commune with that inner spirit.
Jesus stressed that our behavior reflects what spirit truly guides us regardless of lip service. IMHO that means we celebrate kindness, mercy, love and truth where we find them regardless of labels. What irritates me about some forms of Christianity is that they seem more concerned about the label of Jesus than the attributes he spoke of. Love isn’t love unless it’s Christian love. A backsliding Christian who struggles vainity or lust or anger, is somehow forgiven his flaws because of belief while a kind and loving person form some other religion is damed. I don’t believe that resembles what Jesus actually taught, but is man’s teaching and tradition that has usurped Jesus teachings.
And the truth is there’s a lot we don’t know. There’s a lot of people who live in denial of a lot of historical evidence in oreder to maintain religious belief. How does that serve the truth? The question that occurs to me is how much to we need to believe in a literal way to appreciate what Jesus taught and put it into practice. Not much I think.
I did a lot of reading in the Book of Mormon {I still wonder where the theological concepts in it came from} as well as other religions. I tried to put together various concepts into something that made sense to me.
Off and on over years. And as I said, I’m no Bible scholar and my reading was casual without digging into the history, sources, and commentaries.
Well, wasn’t his “death” just a prelude to everlasting life?
I think the account in John 16-18 makes it pretty clear that there was a script and Jesus knew it. According to John 17:1- Jesus "lifted up his eyes and said, Father, the hour is come; Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
…
I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do."
Speaking about cities Deut 20:13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into they hands, thou shall smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword." followed by Deut 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thy hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife:
12 Then thou shalt bring her home …
Followed by a description of the routine the woman is to go through in order to clear the way for you to make her a wife.
Being committed isn’t something to admire; very bad and very good people can be dedicated to the point of death.
Mr “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” ? It takes selective reading to make him a good guy, and promoting religion is not a commitment to truth and kindness given the way religions tend to behave. Also, promoting a monotheism is not the way to promote “the common brotherhood of man”, given that such belief systems are inherently intolerent.
Really, he was either one of the bad guys or a screw up; either way, I don’t admire him at all.
More support for my God = psychopath theory.
Of course, if that had happened to more than one man in ancient times who was supposedly his son, and supposing there was actual evidence it even happened - it might be convincing. As it is, it’s not; people believe because of their will to believe, not because it makes sense.
There’s nothing to indicate he *desired * crucifixtion. Praying in the garden he asked if this cup could pass from him. I think of it as resignation. It’s interesting to note that several times he told those he healed to *not * tell what happened. He seemed focused on his message more than becoming a celebrity. People being who they are, made it more about him. I believe he sensed a certain inevitibility and yet remained committed to a path of teaching and truthfulness.
I agree with you in that the connection between the OT prophecies and JC were made after the fact.
It’s true that both good and evil can be committed. It’s also possible to admire commitment without admiring the specifics. People can even admire the enemy.
Out of curiosity, what might you find admirable in anybody?
Or it takes looking at the whole of what he taught rather than pulling verses out of context. I see that Jesus promoted ideas that are contained within religion but I don’t see that he promoted religion per say. He seemed more concerned about the actual practice of thses principles in day to day life rather than religious tradition. That’s part of what got him in trouble and a big part of what the sword scripture you referenced is about. I don’t see Jesus being responsible for the distortions of his teachings and the horrible things done in his name. Ole GWB talks of freedom and liberty while acting to the contrary. Should I conclude that freedom and liberty are bad things?
Mankind is intolerant so lets stop promoting mankind. People are obviously capable of lots of bad things so I think if we just stop procreating the world will be a whole lot better off. Aren’t sweeping generalities nifty?
Jesus didn’t teach that we should have huge structured religions. That is a perversion added by others.
From looking at just the words attributed to Jesus in the NT you can see that he taught tolerance. He taught people to care for one another regardless of social barriers and tradition. He taught respect for women long before mankind actually began to grow into it. He taught that we should care about each other more than we care about money, prestige, social position, or long standing tradition.
Since it was fairly predictable, I think he is at fault. If I was famous and made speeches about how religious people are evil, and founded a movement dedicated to this, and that movement killed religious people - would I not be at fault ?
No, you should conclude that he is a bad thing. Christ did not preach freedom and liberty, he preached religion - which I do consider a bad thing.
Thing is, I do consider humanity pretty much of a disaster. Human history, frankly, is a list of atrocity heaped upon tragedy heaped upon stupidity. I don’t recommend we stop breeding/kill ourselves becuse it wouldn’t work, and I don’t want to die. However, I doubt that anything short of massive genetic engineering will improve us; I see no evidence religion is up to the job.
No, but if his religion succeeded it was an inevitability. It’s like the people who shoot guns in the air to celebrate something; it’s irresponsible because the bullet always comes down.
Not liking/respecting an individual for what he did or for endangering others is not intolerance. Am I intolerant for hating drunken drivers, or those who hit and run ?
Well yes, actually, according to Matthew 5. In fact, you should be inviting the hit-and-run guy, having bashed in your left fender, to do a number on the right as well.
My understanding is that Jesus took on the sins of the world (well the sins we wish to place on him), at which time is is sepperated from the Father. When you die sepperated you can’t go to God, the only place left is hell (which I also think earth is - my own humble O).
While in hell he got busy, sought out “The Big Evil One” and took away his power of death. Which seems to have taken those 3 (1.5) days.
Now I don’t have any idea of what happened behind the seans here to get Jesus back to ‘Heaven’, I assume since He is God he can come and go as he pleases, just like Satan can at this time - a power that will be taken from Satan.
Jesus was never in danger going to Hell nor was He ‘confined’ there, His sorrow is the sepperation from the Father.
That turn the other cheek stuff is one of the things I consider destructive about his teachings. Anyone who follows it is going to regret it, and I believe the fact that such a silly idea is promoted as moral has helped promote the idea that moral = stupid.
Though I’m not and have never been a Christian (rather, a quite-serious atheist), I can see the possible merit in such an approach - if you are routinely being victimized. BF Skinner (in Walden Two) examined this at length. If a Christian gets his possessions confiscated by Romans (or whatever), the attitude of Matthew doesn’t get your possessions back, but it does allow some degree of solace. Similarly, the nonviolent approach of Martin Luther King helped southern blacks who frankly were being routinely victimized and had no other recourse.
Personally, I favour a secular system of laws and courts that respect civil rights and work to equitably redress grievances without regard to race or class, but I have the luxury of having been born into a nation where such a system was already in place and I could immediately benefit from it. This certainly wasn’t true in Jesus’ time and for many people, still isn’t.
That said, I agree that sactimony in any form is annoying and ideas that might conceivably lead to replacing secular laws and courts with religious ones are downright alarming.