Hmmm, it’s telling IMHO, that people should be saying ‘this is so unimportant and inconsequential to me that I must destroy it’…
Czar, that is your privilege and your right, which I will defend. However, if every single miracle that Jesus is said to have performed were debunked as total legend-creation by his followers, I’d still be singing the same song as I am – because he, or somebody purporting to be him, changed my life around. There was a time when I’d have thought you to be expressing my views, albeit a bit more extremely than I would have then. Will you accept my word that something happened that changed me? Not necessarily what I think it was that happened, but the reality of the event itself? Then will you believe me that somehow that event gave me an insight into the sort of life that Jesus is said to have called people into, the strength of will to go do what he said, and the compassion to care about others that I will honestly admit that I had not had before? If you can buy that much, I don’t particularly care what interpretation you put on what that “something” was – because that’s my honest testimony as to what “Jesus” did in my life. (Quotes because I don’t demand you believe that it was Him, though I’m convinced it was – just that you accept my statement of my own personal Pentecost event as being the truth as I experienced it.)
Here are my two cents, for what they are worth – one in direct answer to the OP, the second a commentary on an issue that Czar raises.
(1) For me the central teaching of Jesus centers on one statement he made in response to the question, “Which is the most important of the Commandments?” Forgive me, I must paraphrase; Lib or Polycarp may have to post a more accurate version:
“Love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole spirit and your whole heart; and love your neighbor as yourself.”
Everything else Jesus, and those who came after him, said are expansions and qualifications of those two phrases. Simple ideas completely devoid of dogma, but often hard to put into practice.
Which brings me to my second point:
Maybe the reason we keep hearing these concepts repeated in so many voices throughout human history is that they bear repeating, because we still haven’t learned them.
BTW, to which city & ruler is he referring? Surely not Rome and the four-century emperor Constantine?
“Every time I look at you, I don’t understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You’d have managed better if you’d had it planned
Now why’d you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
If you’d come today you would have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. .”
– Superstar – Tim Rice.
I however do think the message of Jesus is old and universal (Even though I am a hard agnostic-soft atheist). His message of love is not original (but it doesn’t make it less powerful); it goes even beyond religion.
Beside the messages already mentioned, the most powerful message IMO is always hidden by the current church powers. But people under oppressive circumstances (poverty is one of those) always get it:
That a hero unjustly killed, in the fight against a corrupt system, will live forever.
To see how even an atheist can get to that basic message and make one of the best bible movies check “The Gospel According to St. Matthew” by Pier Paolo Pasolini.
I think one of the weapons Jesus used was to throw a monkey wrench to the roman taxation system. No wonder he was crucified. Gandhi rediscovered that message in the 20th century.
Perhaps the more important questions isn’t “Just what was Jesus’ message;” rather, we should be asking ourselves why can’t we put his message (or the message of any other people who essentially preached the same message) into action. Get back to me when you guys figure that one out and I think we’ll have made progress. Until then, it is tilting at windmills.
Good point plnnr.
I don’t think he meant simply that individuals as individuals should forgive rather than seek vengeance, share with others without keeping track of who owes you what, and refrain from judging their neighbors. I think he meant that even as individual acting in an official capacity we should do these things, i.e., that our social system should not seek vengeance (enforce the law through the imposition of punishment), and should facilitate sharing without keeping track of who owes what (i.e., no economic system as we know it, no currency, no debts), which is a description of an anarchy. And a functioning anarchy would indeed be the kingdom of god. Were such a social system to exist and function (putting aside for the moment claims about the impossibility thereof), there would not be any reason for individuals to hate and distrust and plot against and seek vengeance against each other–or at least only the manageable set of mundane reasons that would persist as petty squabbles and personality conflicts.
What a place SDMB is! A place where theists can appreciate the dignity of atheists and accept that they have created an exemplary morality from their own intrinsic judgment, and a place where atheists can appreciate the faith of theists and accept our claim that it was given to us by God.
I just wanted to thank you, GIGOBuster. Even though you and I might disagree with respect to His message of love, I stand square beside you with respect to religion. I believe that His message of love is original because all others who’ve heard the message and shared it have heard it from Him, creator of the universe and giver of life. It is original to Him because He is the original Love.
But religion has made its own name cheap. It has worked hard through the ages to disassociate itself from Love. Religion is the kingdom of Satan because it is full of money changers and hypocrites. Jesus said that such people (who are really a type of politician, seeking to control the lives and wealth of other people) are like whitewashed tombs: on the outside all clean and white, but on the inside full of dead bones and decay. So long as the politics continues, the church will defile God.
I think I understand exactly what you mean, but there’s something rather strange about the above sentence that I can’t quiteput my finger on.
Nice partial quotation, Libertarian.
I believe that what I said was that, if I believed for one second that the god of the Bible existed and that he did what the Bible said he did, I would make it my duty to find a way to bring him down. I didn’t mention swords, but I did mention that I didn’t believe he existed anyway, so the point was moot.
Let me say this one more time, hoping you finally get the point:
I do not “hate” imaginary beings.
Clear enough for you?
Name one. If they were springing up all over the place, it should be easy.
Perhaps it is the negative (chaotic) associations most have with the term Anarchy. How’s this:
A Functioning Compassionate Anarchy
Yes, I think it might be the use of the words “functioning” and “kingdom”. These are not usually words we associate with “anarchy”.
But I like the sentiment, however expressed: the idea that if we all treated one another as we should, we wouldn’t have to be told how to act by the Other. The SDMB almost achieves that, as Libertarian has observed.
Lib, a question: Where did he say this? I don’t remember that particular analogy.
I’m not Lib, but I got here first. 
Matthew 23:27-28
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
I think it was actually the juxtaposition of ‘kingdom’(implying rule) and ‘anarchy’(implying no rule).
Repent!
and
I forgive you.
But you won’t if we don’t repent, Rose? :o
If you saw a selling his product to everyone in your town, and you suspected he wasn’t legit, wouldn’t it be the right thing to tell them of your suspicion? Besides, Chrisitianity is everything but inconsequential. Its been the cause of wars, murders, controversies, threads, and intolerance since it first got big.
About a year ago, Triskadecamus summed up Jesus’ message as best as any I’ve ever read.
Czarcasm,
You can, if you wish, continue to deny that your reply was intended as a denigration of all Christians, and Christ as well. It might hurt to know that sarcasm is a thin disguise, seldom hiding anything. You reply out of reflex with a generalization couched in the contempt you always show for anyone who sees the world, or any other thing differently than your personal prejudices demand that you defend. It is sad, weak, and pitiable.
Jesus, or the charlatans who made him up, tell us that we must be willing to offer you again and again the love that is the true message He brought for all Mankind. I will try to do that again.
Even if there is no Christ, no Heaven, no God, nor any souls, nor immortality, nor even right and wrong, the message still stands out. Love every soul you encounter in the world. It is a good idea no matter who says it. If you spit on the idea, just because you don’t want to believe in the source, you kill something in yourself.
Tris
“You don’t believe in God. That doesn’t mean He can’t believe in you.” Some Christian
Disbelief does not=hate.
Criticism does not=hate.
The message you are trying to send me has been recieved by me a thousand times and rejected a thousand times. Consider your obligation fulfilled. I recieve love from others, give love to others, and believe that love is a good thing without the need to believe in your “source”. The message of Love stood out long before your god was a vague idea/explanation/excuse in the back of a primitive persons’ mind, and the thought that Christianity tries to claim credit for it is about as silly as my trying to patent the wheel.
Again, for the last time: I do not waste my time hating imaginary beings.