Yes, I disagree with your opinion. The Bible has spawned things in both directions.
Mmmm…possibly you are right. And while it would be fun to debate it, I’ll just say I have my beliefs, founded on what I’ve read some academics write on the subject. And with that belief, I’d say that the whole tapestry of Christianity, with its willingness to believe the unbelievable, is what bugs me.
Now, allowing that Jesus existed, there’s still plenty of unproveable, and downright fictional, stuff for me to be bugged by. But, again, what really bugs me is how good Christianity at imposing its version of things when it’s probably wrong. For instance, employing intelligent people - such as yourself - to spread its false beliefs.
One other beef I have with some people’s take on Christianity: the refusal to acknowledge that yes, there are people who are not Christian. Some people don’t seem to understand that our not wanting to be Christian ourselves doesn’t mean we don’t think anyone should be Christian, just that we don’t want to be. This attitude comes out with the whole public prayer issue. Jesus came out against public prayer:
So why do some Christians make such a big to-do about wanting to do something that Jesus explicitly said they should not do? I can’t think of any reason, other than to make non-Christians feel excluded.
(And yes, I know that not all Christians want explicitly Christian public prayers, and not all Christians have a problem with the existence of non-Christians. This particular beef doesn’t apply to them.)
I don’t like all the emphasis that some forms of Christianity put on all the End Times business.
Traditionally, a prospective convert is supposed to be turned away three times, to make sure they’re sincere. They are also supposed to be made aware of the prejudice and persecution that people have faced (and some still face) for being Jewish. The amount of discouragement a prospective convert will actually get varies from movement to movement and from rabbi to rabbi, though.
Buddha is Lord, Krishna is Lord, Mohammed is Lord…and what of the Goddess for the Wiccans? This is a silly argument, and it reflects that arrogance I keep coming back to.
You lost me with Paul, BTW–Paul, who was jealous of the women around Jesus and who was as wily a politician as any priest in Henry VIII’s court…
general thoughts follow:
I am mostly agnostic now–not sure if there is a God or not. Sometimes I’m a deist. I think Jesus was a great teacher and man, but I never (even in my most Xian days) truly believe he was the literal son of god. Metaphor, symbol, icon–but not literal.
I also cannot accept the Bible as anything but fable–virgin birth? That story was tacked on long after Jesus was dead. The 3 threads of the genesis story-which contradict one another and also the widely held belief that Eve “caused” mankind’s downfall etc–all of this is legend for me.
The stories can teach us much about human nature and the issues confronting early civilizations. There is also quite a bit of insight to be found in the bible as well, but it’s not like someone took dictation for God. People (men) wrote it all down. What men have written, men can change(edit? heh).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm Not everybody. There has been a discussion about it for centuries.
Not disputing the historicity of Jesus but Suetonius and the Talmud don’t belong on this list. The Talmud because the alleged allusions to Jesus (and whether any of them actually refer to Jesus is highly disputed) date from the 3rd Century – much too late to be regarded as contemporary corrobration that Jesus existed.
Suetonius, likewise, is not a valid cite. The argument for Suetonius as providing corroboration for a historical Jesus come from the following statement in his Life of Claudius (25:4) from Twelve Caesars:
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
Chrestus has been interpreted by some to be a misspelled reference to Christus (Christ) but Chrestus was a common Greek name (meaning “good”) and in particular, a common slave name in Rome. The passage also implies that “Chrestus” was in Rome (which, of course, Jesus never was) and that Claudius expelled “the Jews,” not Christians.
It is sometimes argued that Suetonius may not have understood the distinction between Christians and Jews but in his life of Nero (16:2) he says the following:
During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made. A limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
This passage would seem to indicate that Suetonius not only understood the distinction between Jews and Christians but also knew how to spell “Christians.”
Suetonius does present evidence that Christians existed in Rome during the reign of Nero but any evidence for the existence of Jesus is vague and subjective at best.
Having said all that, it is still accepted as a matter of course by the vast majority of historians that Jesus was a real person.
Here’s my favorite:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
Well, to take it one level further, I think the idea that people who have suggested Christians are arrogant for any other reason are either lying or mistaken is arrogant.
Just as a question; what percentage of people who hold resentment towards Christians and Christianity would you say do so because of the flaws, sinfulness (let’s use badness, since it’s their views) and so on, and how many are resentful because of the message that they aren’t the Lord? I mean, I for one don’t have “be Lord” as one of my hopes, dreams or desires. I can’t believe that there’s a very high percentage of people at all for who that’s even a concern.
I really do understand your point and in many ways agree, but when you think about it, isn’t it correct for people to stand up for and promote what they truly believe is right and best for their town, state country, mankind? don’t we do that in many ways about many things other than religion?
Isn’t the confrontation that comes from different people promoting their own concept of truth, or what is right, an important part of what moves mankind forward? What if slavery had not been challenged? Womens rights? Human and civil rights? If people shouldn’t be arrogant enough to assume they know what is right then how do we progress as a race of beings?
I think there are some lines to be drawn with violence being a fairly clear one, but it seems correct to me to challenge each others beliefs in some honorable way. When someone decides to witness to me I don’t mind too much but they’d better come prepared to hear what I think.
I usually feel that people who volunteer to pray for me have good, if somewhat misguided intentions. I had some people from the church I belonged to many years ago praying for me, I suppose, to return to the fold. Ah well. They were praying I would see the error of my ways while I was hoping they might see the error of theirs.
Like you I feel that Christianity too often misses the point in claiming to follow Jesus. However, I’ve also seen many wonderful caring compassionate people making a very positive contribution through the vehicle of their faith and belief. I won’t condemn Christianity as a whole but I don’t mind speaking bluntly to those who I feel miss the mark by a long shot. Then again, I guess that’s only my own arrogant opinion.
Out of curiosity, on what do you base this belief?
Jesus recognized that the Apostles had a lot to learn in the passages that have survived. Is it possible that those disciples did the best they could but others were supposed to continue to develop and expand his message?
How is an individual going to know if they are obeying God and/or Jesus and the Holy Spirit, rather than say, some preacher, doctrine or dogma?
Are most people really atheist, or are they just non-practicing Christians. Most of my friends, for instance, believe in God, but almost none of them goes to Church or practices any kind of real religion.
Well, there is not much trace of mesoAmerican culture left, as a case in point. That’s certainly a combination of missionaries and conquistadors, but the conquistadors certainly felt one of their jobs was to spread Christianity.
You might argue that not all traces of Aztec culture were wiped out. That’s probably true, but you might as well argue that all traces of Germanic pagan culture were not wiped out because you goyim have your Christmas trees and holly wreaths.
I will agree with you that missionaries are just as obnoxious in established cultures as indigenous cultures. 
However, just because a set of skeptical dopers is not very likely to believe that that nice Nigerian widow has lots of money to launder doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t protect the less skeptical. Lots of scams are focused on recent immigrants, the uneducated, and the elderly. These people are not stupid, but they are at higher risk. Can’t we introduce technology to new cultures without religion being there? Lots of these cultures have multiple, non-exclusive gods. I suspect that giving up the old gods is not the first thing the missionaries say. Convince them of heaven and hell, tell them their old gods can’t save them from a concept the old priests weren’t evil enough to come up with, and then tell them they have to give up the old gods.
Poof - their went the Greek and Roman cultures. Poof, there went the Germanic culture. Poof, there went the Druids. No culture destruction here.
Well we can’t fault you for being wishy washy.
I seriously doubt if people would harbor 1/10th the resentment they do for Christians if those who profess to worship Christ could and did actually live according to his teachings.
Gandhi was a great admirer of the teachings of Jesus and when asked why he didn’t become a Christian he responded “When Christians actually live according to the sermon on the mount then I’ll become a Christian”
I can excuse the shortcomings of Christians who fall short. I am in need of forgiveness so I try to be forgiving. I am far less than perfect and I kind of expect that from others. What is really annoying is when people are telling others they should follow Jesus WHEN THEY DON"T!!!
So, for Christians everywhere, here’s a news flash. Your testimony about Jesus will have much more effect if it is LIVED in your everyday actions rather than just preached. Preach it only to the extent that you are able to live it. When you preach it but don’t live it, you look like an pious ass and the only testimony you really offer is that you’re full of crap. Of course that’s MHO.
Did Jesus of Nazareth indend that as individuals those who wished to follow him should personally forgive those who have wronged them, share what they have with those who are less well off, and refrain from judging others, embracing everyone as a brother (or presumably as a sister)?
I would assume he did.
Did Jesus of Nazareth intend ONLY that, or did Jesus of Nazareth intend also that those who wished to follow him should attempt to create a society in which the laws, rules, social codes, economics, religions strictures, and so forth were all brought into alignment with the principle that everyone should always forgive those who wrong them (ergo, no punishment, period), share what they have with those who are less well off (ergo, no personal property, period), and refrain from judging others (ergo, that clause in combo with beforementionee no punishment = no structured authority of some people over other people at all, period)?
I would assume he did.
Do you seriously think that one iota of his intentionality was directed towards getting himself nailed up on a cross, on purpose, in order that his Daddy God would forgive everyone for original sin? Do you think his efforts were all aimed at getting folks to accept him personally as their Lord and Savior, the gilding of the messenger?
I would assume he did NOT. The good messenger wants you to get the message, and that was his focus. Not the messenger, the message.
It has been noted that a great deal of his ministry seemed to juxtapose and bring into conflict the letter of the law (which, in a non-secular society was simultaneously the religious law and the everyday civil law) versus the spirit of the law. Do you think he intentionally sought out that juxtaposition in order to make some point about the relative merits of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law?
I would assume he did.
Has it ever crossed your mind as a possibility that the outcome he might have intended w/regards to the sequence of events leading to his crucifixion was some kind of showdown between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law? Did it ever occur to you to consider that he was clever, not stupid, and if he were in that situation he probably provoked it to make a point?
C’mon. I damn well KNOW he did. I’ve read the same book you did. And c’mon again: the compellingly obvious scenario was that the enforcers of the law would have to back down. Because he had not in fact actually done anything wrong and it was obvious that such was the case. Letter or spirit, you know what I do, c’mon make your choice.
I don’t think he anticpated the local Jewish folks punting and putting the decision the hands of the Romans. Maybe he did; maybe he was ready to up the ante. At any rate, it went bad, it went wrong.
People who intentionally arrange to get offed are called “suicidal”. Do you seriously want to suggest that we should follow one who said “follow me” and who then deliberately got himself killed?
Oops.
Damn brave of him. Risked his life fairly often just to illustrate a point. You can’t encapsulate the will of God in text. You can write inspired text, but better the people should seek their own answers than blindly kowtow to the sacred parchment, the Document, the Law. Look, and I will make you realize that.
Jesus the Stragegist. I absolutely hated The Last Temptation of Christ because it portrayed him as profoundly stupid and in the grip of events. No fucking way. Go take a fresh read of the source material. He had a set of interwoven intentions, they were radical, and he planned everything and executed most of it downright exquisitely.
You wanna know what my main beef with Christianity is, for real? You’ve taxidermied him. Dipped his corpse in gold-plate and stuck him up front and told us to worship him as a fucking Icon. He would hurl chunks. You folks mostly don’t have a clue about he whom you claim to worship, you really don’t.
The perfect metaphor.
I appreciate your post. Of course we really don’t know what happened. but IMHO the point to the story is to consistently live according to what is true about humanity. To value the eternal qualities of truth, love and our connection to others above all else, even our physical lives.
I think Jesus anticipated where his teaching might lead and though he’d rather not go there “let this cup pass from me” he had to remain true.
Early in his ministry he preforms some miracles and asks the recipients not to tell others about it, but of course they do, and that leads to crowds gathering, the religious leaders feeling offended and threatened by him, and his eventual crucifixion. I believe he was intuitive enough about mankind to see where it was going.
Amen
Look at the history of the world’s great religions and you’ll see the theme repeated.
Buddha never claimed to be Lord. He was unsure if there was a Deity. He did seem to be sure there was an Ultimate Light and that he had partaken of it.
Krishna did indeed claim Lordship, if indeed there was an actual person, though as far as I know, we cannot place him in any historical context.
Mohammed would be appalled at any claim of Lordship applied to him.
The Wiccan Goddess has no historic person who claimed to be her embodiment/
messenger/avatar, etc.
My point is that the core of the arrogance in Christianity that you abhor originates with Jesus.
And of course I lost you with Paul, who I believe faithfully led the Church as he was so commissioned by Jesus. You don’t. Of course, there is no evidence of any
jealousy of the Lord’s female disciples. And his alleged anti-women statements
actually have more reasonable historical interpretations. I will not deny that the
Church has tended to ignore those in favor of actual anti-female interpretations.
By saying that they resent the message “Jesus is Lord and they’re not”, I didn’t mean that they have aspirations to Deity but that they do resent the Christian claim that Jesus has primary claim to be Boss of them, and they aren’t supposed to be their own Boss. As to the percentage who resent to some degree, however slight, Jesus’s claim to total Boss-hood, I’d say nigh 100%, even among Christians.
As to what percentage that is the primary reason among those who have a beef with C’nity, I have no idea.
I think that’s a grossly oversimplistic explanation of why the Mesoamerican cultures died out, as we as a grossly oversimplified representation of the motives of the conquistadors. I doubt that you’d find a single sociologist who would say, “It was religion’s fault!” or somesuch nonsense.
Moreover, even if we grant that claim, it would be foolish to take this data point in isolation. It would be foolish use Mesoamerica to declare that religion causes missionaries to wipe out cultures “without a trace.” Using that logic, one could point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and declare “See? This is what happens when you pursue science!” Heck, one could even comb murderer’s row, cherry-pick the inmates until you find one who’s an moral relativist and an atheist, then declare “This is what happens when people feel feel that there’s no God and that they’re not beholden to any moral law!”
I don’t doubt that you’ll find people like that… Just as there are many atheists who hold that atheism is the “default position” or that their beliefs are unquestionable. Christianity itself, however, teaches no such thing. Quite the contrary; it holds that believers should be ready to present reasons for their beliefs (1 Peter 3:15).
Are there Christians who say that they are “automatically right,” by your definition? You’ll find people like that anywhere, even among atheists. Such thinking is not endorsed by Christian doctrine; in fact, it goes explicitly against what Christianity teaches.