This is when Jesus comes in handy!!!

Oh my.... Don't know what the scriptural insert is all about T6? Care to elaborate?


Jesus, as portrayed in popular belief, is not the same personality as the one portrayed historically. Great license has been taken by those attempting to grow the faith in his biblical portrayal.


That the Trinity as a construct isn't surprising once you realize its ALL a construct. I fully believe Jesus was simply a man. He couldn't be anything else if I don't believe in a god. It's what the purveyors of the great lie pretend he was that's the question. By reinforcing the association of godly embodiment into the Christ, as is generally prescribed by most recognized Christian denominations, he is uplifted from mere human status into a par, or more correctly a part of, God.


That people seem to think they can pick and choose which bits to use or not use while still spreading the cultural acceptance of a Christ and have it remain an innocuous act is short sighted. By using an individualized spirituality and assigning to it a recognition used by the christian church you are aiding in perhaps one of the grandest of all political cons by adding legitimacy where there truly is none.

 

I accept great license has been used regarding Jesus. But i can easily pick and choose what i accept Res. Many people have laid out there interpretations of what his word meant.Im free to dissect that and also decide for myself what i agree with and what i dont from their interpretations. I understand your point though regarding that comment. This is the problem with religion,they try to interpret things too much and they force people into boxes. As far as Jesus the man then i have no problem accepting any of the words attributed to him in the new testament. I firmly believe that if you are able to raise the bar and live the way his parables point towards then your life will be better. The grey areas come in when people try to decide for us what Jesus meant. The message of Jesus is a simple one. The hard part for me as a person is trying to be that person who turns the other cheek and loves his enemy etc. I have no problem accepting his message,only trouble implementing it into my lifestyle.


If we put various religions aside and just see the message for what it is then its a good way to live your life.He makes sense. People can choose not to believe in Jesus,iv no issue with that whatsoever. People like Richard Dawkings accept Jesus was a real person,they choose not to believe him.Thats fair enough but i cant accept someone telling me he wasnt real when they can accept someone else is real by the same standard of evidence.Thats my issue.Christopher Hitchens maintains “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”. But that works both ways.If someone tells me Jesus wasnt real but offer absolutely no evidence to prove he wasnt real then i can dismiss their claims without evidence also. You wont find me telling and insisting to people he was real and that they MUST believe or they are weak if they dont. Atheists too often try to fall back on their pseudo intellect and its insulting. As if to say a person who believes Jesus was real is feeble or weak minded and needs the word of Jesus as a crutch?? Come on,why cant people chose to value the obvious truths within his words in the same way they value the obvious truths within the works of Plato. I enjoy reading Plato very much and i can use much of his work to better myself as a person and human being in the EXCT same way i can with the words and works of Jesus. It doesnt HAVE to be one or the other and anyone who insists this is the case hasnt understood all they have read (not a dig at Lion cos he'll rightly take offense to that after having studied him and philosophy.More just a point in general)


.I keep my own council on such things and i have no need to explain my core beliefs to anyone. I only choose to pipe up now and then when i feel my intelligence is insulted. Believing in Jesus and the Gospel or TRYING to believe in it shouldnt be construed as weakminded.Trying to better yourself and your understanding is admirable and i do take offense to being told heres no such person with no evidence to back it up (again,not a dig at Lion,more the Atheist viewpoint in general). How can i be weak for believing in something (with no evidence to back it up as Athesists insist) but yet Athesist arent considered close minded or ignorant for insisnting someone wasnt real when they have no basis for that whatsoever except that Jesus absolutely challenges their beliefs in the exact same way? Its nonsensical,to me at least.Im quite an open person,more often than not i WILL alter my viewpoint if someone gives me real food for thought and insight.Hell iv done it often enough n this forum.But to put something down and offer little to nothing to varify that putdown is just as bad as the idiotic christian who ignorantly insists hes right and everyone else is going to hell type scenario.


Atheists more often than not feel compelled to insist he isnt real but they simply cannot possibly ever prove this.If there was proof Jesus was NOT real then everyone would know of it,you can be sure of that.Theres no such proof.So i cant accept people telling me he wasnt a real person. By the same standard i wont insist to non believrs that they accept he was real.I'll just know what i believe and leave it at that.I dont try to make out Plato wasnt real.I only used him as an example cos if someone can prove to me he is real then by the same standard of evidence i can prove them Jesus was real. Once you can accept Jesus existed in a historical context then personally the rest is up to personal discretion and intuition. Only weak minded people will let someone sway their belief by their beliefs. The trinity doesnt make sense to me. It doesnt ring true when you compare things Jesus said to things he didnt say. The Roman Empire and the Catholic church removed parts of the bible to suit their own political agenda and for that reason cant be trusted. I read the gnostic gospels and other such works and i see no reason why the majority of them were removed except that they conflicted with agendas of catholic churchmen and the romans,etc.


I bite my tongue often on this topic cos its like a dog chasing its tail.You never catch it. Its futile arguing for or against with non believers the same way they likely see it as futile arguing with believers.But to make a statement saying a person isnt real.That requires evidence to validate the statement.If i said with certainty Plato didnt exist i would expect people to ask me for evidence of this other than simply saying thats the conclusion i reached. Theres much evidence that points toward Jesus being a real person.But sadly when it comes to this topic of discussion for some reason Jesus requires way more evidence of his existence than ANY other historical person. Im drinking and rambling but my point is there....somewhere

 

Oh we'll catch it one day, just not until we're in a condition that leaves us unable to answer the question.


You hit the pernicious truth that supports the expanded definition Ap. By assigning the culturally recognized label to a belief that is your own, and not similar in most things except borrowed verbiage, you're adding legitimacy to, and furthering the underpinnings of, mainstream christianity.


How we got so far from a simple bedtime story is remarkable. Not only in the thread, but in ancient beliefs as a whole.

 

Too many beers

Ok dont bury me with words Res Care to elaborate what that actually means in terms i'll understand?:icon_biggrin:

 

I believe that was Lionassit:

 

It aint even about "the show". I just sometimes think Why is it so readily accepted Jesus WASNT even a real person who existed but by the EXACT same tokens of evidence people who choose to believe he was a real person can be derided?It just never makes sense to me. Im always willing to see the other POV but more often than not the Atheist resorts to mockery instead of using the "intellect" to actually put down markers and back up the claims.


Believers are expected to PROVE beyond doubt Jesus was not only real in a factual sense but to then justify things he preached.But in reality many of the things he "preached" he didnt actually preach.People who "interpet" what he taught for their own ends are the ones that put this shit out there and the poor joe bloggs believer has to justify their bullshit. If you believe Jesus was real you have to prove it?? But if you can say hes a made up person you dont have to prove it simply because you have the ability to pick holes in a few grey areas??What kind of logic is that though??


Spiritualism and belief isnt a logic based system. Atheists deride it as feelings and what not but i think the faith system is a whole lot more than that. People dont blindly believe in something(normal people not the zealots and radicals). You read,learn and then if you put into practice what your learning only then can you decide.For people who havent the faith to do this to mock a faith based system just isnt logical at all.


To also critique personal belief doesnt stand up in my mind. If a scientific doctor tells me im gonna die by monday no doubt and tells all my family to come say goodbye and my family pray for me to live and i live come monday then how can the people who prayed for that mircale have their personal faith questioned? Sometimes this line of thought raises more questions than it answers for me but i enjoy having my thoughts challenged.Furthermore i dont think anyone can possibly write of someone elses personal experience. They have to go out and find their own and judge it by theirselves.


Yeah fair enough i cant tell people Jesus is true cos thats my personal belief.But proof in this cntet isnt the be all and end all.Otherwise NONE of the worlds believers would need faith whatsoever. You cant dismiss someones personal experience because you dont understand it.And you cant put it down to wishful thinking or weakmindedness either. You either experience something for yourself or you dont. If i thoroughly investigate religion and then if i try put it into practice and after considerable time and effort it doesnt rign true then maybe im qualified to say i dont agree.But i still cant prove all the others who believe are wrong .Its just an area i think is to easy to write of due to "lack of this or lack of that".


I do try school myself in spiritual areas.I really couldnt give a shit whether people find that amusing or not. I dont knock what i havent fully understood and too often thats what Atheists are doing....without any evidence and yet they scream to believers for evidence.Its the same hypocrisy that they accuse christians off. If people dont believe they dont believe,theres NO problem with that as we are all entitled to belief in whoever and whatever we want. If people want to call bullshit then they must back that up. Why iv spent my night drining beer and returning to this thread i dont know Maybe its cos i consider myself someone who is earnest to learn things i dont understand and also teach my son good values and things too and it does annoy me that people can write of something im trying to learn with little credible thought or evidence.Who knows....time for another beer i guess

 

Dude...believe what you believe. If you want to believe in Bobism that's cool by me. :redbong: What happens is when Bobism uses Christianity's terms and construct to define Bobbism's beliefs they add the legitimacy of Bobbism to that of Christianity by deepening the relevance.


In the US it's common to call all tissue Kleenex. My tissue may be nothing like Kleenex. It may be better than Kleenex. But if I ask for Kleenex everybody knows what I'm talking about and my use of the term thereby deepens the market (legitimacy) of Kleenex even though my product may be vastly superior. Same thing goes for borrowed philosophies and religious terminologies.


How do you think Christianity got so big anyway? Especially if Christ was a mere man? If it wasn't by the hand of a steering God it had to be by dumb luck.....or.......the ability to borrow constructs of regional beliefs, infuse them with a few basics and terminologies then call it Christianity ...oh wait...a NEW denomination of Christianity. This is precisely why we have Greek Orthodox, Midwestern Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Church of England and ALL of them have their own definition.


asssit: If you fervently believe that you can somehow know and understand the true Jesus as he originally taught after all that any of us has been bombarded with concerning interpretations then power to ya amigo. Anything less is just bedtime stories to a 5 year old.

 

I dont fervently believe anything Res.You misunderstand where im trying to approach this from. Im someone who had religion in my life from my parents,thn totally rejected and dismissed it but some life experiences have made me question my disregard.While im not willing to subscribe to ANY one religion. I am willing to learn more about somthing i dont fully understand.If i was a fervent believer then i would take offence to every Lion,Nippie or Hank. When in reality if you look at people im most friendly with on this forum its the likes of them and yourself.Im not fervently anything man. Theres nothing wrong in me TRYING to understand and TRYING to learn.Just cos i aint got it all in a neat little package like 99% of religious folks dont mean im a card carrying Bobbist to use your phrase.


Im only trying to understand something that for much of my life iv dismissed ,even joked about. But the more i read the more things make sense. I read the new testament,specifically i read words attributed to Jesus.Things hes attributed to have said make sense so i try to understand on a deeper level. Never do i fervently believe in this though cos in all honesty i dont know whats bullshit and whats not.Which brings me i guess to my original point with Lion.If someone is gonna call bullshit then me,as someone TRYING to understand all this,would like a a little clarity on the bullshit.If summits bullshit that im trying to school myself on then fair enough.BUT SHOW ME WHY ITS BULLSHIT.


Give me the same evidence you would demand from me if i WAS a fervent believer. Res im approaching this from a whole other angle and i think you maybe think im trying to preach when im actually trying to understand .Im not arguing ,more wanting to understand how someone can be considered make believe but in the same way others from history can be considered legit?If we call into doubt Jesus was even a real person based on reasons given then i might aswell rip up my history class results cos everything iv ever learned about historical figures could be construed as bullshit on the same basis that we all of a sudden dont trust the written word? Or is it only written words that challenge our beliefs that we are questioning?This is my point.Im happy to challenge my beliefs on anything.But i like to know im challenging it with more than just "this is made up" and offering no insight as to why.


Fervent believers are one thing.A guy trying to understand shit is another and i dont think its unreasonable for me to ask for evidence that Jesus was made up if someone claims it.Especially when the stuff hes meant to have said is summit im trying to acquaint myself with.If you believed in the philosophy of a historical figure and i said he wasnt real then you would want to know why wouldnt you?Thats all i was doing at the start of this. I just dont get how one thing can be called bullshit with the exact same evidence that validates another.Trying to make sense of things is all im doing.Definetely NOT fervently believing anything man

 

The written word, as biblically portrayed, is simply unreliable in a historic context. It's largely, if not wholly, interpretations of oral interpretations finally put to paper then interpreted again. Any ancient works that had been through so much revision would be suspect in authenticity. You ask me, "why is Jesus different?" He isn't, but we are asked to suspend that suspicion because he's the "son of God." charlie.


That there's good life philosophies buried in the muck isn't relevant to the equation. There's good life philosophies in lots of books that are political constructs. Doesn't make them worth following though.


I understand the point of your thrust tho Ap. Not diggin on ya..just stoned and babbling. So if it's a search you be on why constrain it to the simplest cultural tool? Why bother to define it at all? What purpose does that serve to better define your own personal spiritual journey?

 

Im not actually trying to define anything though,maybe in my own head yeah cos everyone tries to make sense and define what they learn or what they try to understand. But to others im not REALLY trying to define anything. This conversation has kinda swayed away from the mini debate me and Lion were originally having.Most likely due to my consumption of beer more than anything. The simplest way to explain it is im openminded about most things and willing to be challenged on ALL things. I dont pretend to be neither intellectual or enlightened in any way. I dont take offence to people who dont believe but more often than not i will seek explanation if someone insists something isnt true or is make believe if only for the reason that why should i bother trying to undertand something if its bullshit. So on that basis if someone can prove to me Jesus didnt even live on this earth then i'll accept that proof and forget my wuest to learn any more. But too often i hear many people say these things with nothing in the way of proof to back it up.Then when i say 2explain2 the usual retort is "you explain why im not right" which is no way to win a debate or get your point across. Which is likely why i enjoy a little religious foreplay with Lion cos he wont usually go with the same lines i hear all too often.Also the fact Lion has had a religious upbringing and has studied philosophy i find interesting and i'll pay more attention to his viewpoint more than i would some random guy i meet in a pub or whatever who just opens his mouth and lets his belly rumble. My only point was how can we accept one ancient person and not the other when there is literally the same amount and type of evidence to suggest both existed.I wasnt asking people to prove religion is ight or wrong,simply to explain how we can know for sure Jesus was made up.We cant and we all know this so i find it intriguing how intelligent people will even go down that route. And that leads MY mind to think- Do we only call into question things that challenge our beliefs? For me its all very interesting and i do enjoy getting passed first base on this sometimes cos too often the debate is empty words and i like to try scratch beneath the surface and find a little credence and substance to the discussion.Again not to be argumentative or to prove a point but for educational purposes. I'll sit and listen to ANYONES views on these tpics and will never dismiss out of hand what you or anyone else says.I actually welcome the debate mostly.Just sometimes though i feel like i gotta kinda stand up for the underdog.Especially if its a subject im interested in. Sometimes i just think its to easy to win the debate without actually getting into the debate. Its all good and the only time i actually take offence is when people insist that if you believe in ANTYHING to do with Jesus its weakness or such things.Not that anyone here was saying that but we all know its inferred on another level.


From my own point of view i think theres more than just good life philosphies in all this,theres truths in there somewhere man and im happy to try find them out. Sometimes im so eager to be proven wron that i can come across as a card carrier and that kinda does the "believer" side no justice cos i cant speak in the same way a believer can.When i say believer i mean someone who not just believes Jesus existed but actually practises what he preaches.Im n ot that person.Im merely someone with an open mind and with a personal belief that theres without doubt a God out there. Out of may religions and religious peoples Jesus has came across as the most believeable to me. He dont seem to be doing anything for his own benefit. If he was wanting credit and glory then maybe he woulda wrote down some stuff himself.He seems to be the kinda dude where his actions would speak louder than mosts words.Sadly we now live in a world where we need proof of everything.Hell take a straw poll and half the country will still insist 911 was an inside job and that was only a few years back so what hope is there for the story of Jesus


Res i just dont see how God and the bible can ALL be bullshit.Islam,Judiasm AND christianity have all came from that one book and i refuse to accept billions of people from then till now are all weakminded people easily manipulated. Theres MUST have been evident truths somewhere along the lines before it all got foggy.Surely any students job is to try figure out where that happened and decide for yourself whats true and whats not.Maybe thats bobbism or whatever but thats where im at.The kleenex thing made sense to me by the way,cheers for putting that into laymens terms for me.Right im clean out of beers now so time for my bed.Peace out

 

Dude, I'm just stoned rambling and don't believe you to be a thumper Ap. But here's what drew me into this thread. You apparently think of Christ as a mere philosopher and not part of the Trinity or a part of God....yet somehow in discussions with your child you assign godlike powers and associations? Why is that?


It's incongruous with a simple philosopher view of Christ and thrusts him into the more supernatural caretaker role of mainstream christianity.


T6- we disagree on much and Christianity/religion is going to be one of them. With children, expose them to as much as possible from all beliefs. The world and spirituality isn't isolated to the regimented views of a christian church so our teaching to our children shouldn't be confined either. Nor should it follow irrational guides. If they choose to follow a spiritual path at the least it will be a choice rather than an indoctrination.


Each parent is free (thank goodness) to teach their children as they wish. But I, for one, would rather not teach them to rely on something that is a not reliable.