Your take on Jesus

[Antoninus]

I was floating around annother message board I go to and I saw a post by a guy who I probably wouldnt catch with an "I love Jesus" bumpersticker. Long story short he had a very low opinion of Jesus so I got to wondering. Some people consider him a savior, some people consider him a maytr, a philosopher, a humanist, etc. Whats your particular take on him?

I personally hold the view that Jesus was lucky. At the time that Jesus lived, there were hundreds of "prophets" roaming the land, preaching thier different rhetoricts. Most of them probably wouldve been viewed as Jesus was, as a trouble maker, and been executed or exiled. I think Jesus and his teachings caught on because he was lucky. It couldve been any other guru or would-be prophet who's teaching caught on.

I think Jesus himself was a good guy, he accepted those who society had chosen to neglect. He dined with a prostitute, had a tax collector as one of his disciples, associated with Romans and gentiles. He stressed non-violent resistance, he saw the flaws in a corrupt system and had the balls to try and fix it WITHOUT slaughtering everyone in sight. So I think Jesus was a lucky, good man.

[mucgwyrt]

I believe he was some sort of guru type guy, intent on helping others. I'm going to get a bashing for this I just know it, but I know tantric gurus who have healed cancers - is that so different from Jesus' feats? And yes, I agree, a good man with a damned good publicist ;)

I do not think him the son of god any more than I am the daughter of God. I think he was speaking metaphorically, and that people just didn't 'get it' and took him a bit too literally.

I do wonder though, like how we all know that rock-stars are more famous when they die - was the whole crucifiction thing a PR stunt? Was it to best spread The Good Word? Would he have been so revered if he had died at 68 by choking on a fish bone?!

[Jaroson]

Okay I have to tell you my mother's view of Jesus.

She thinks that Mary was visited by an alien (the angel) in a spaceship (the bright light and the star which the kings followed) and was impregnated in a classic abduction. (Hence the virgin birth). Then that Jesus was an alien human hybrid which is why he could do a whole host of miraculous feats.

I personally believe that he was a real person and that his stories and teachings have grown around him over time, similarly to other legendary people with their basis in fact. Whether he was the son of god or not, I would say that if he said he was, then he was. I personally do not believe in a Christian God but if Jesus believed then that belief was real for him and for others of his faith.

[mucgwyrt]

:lol: that's sooo cool!

About the Immaculate Conception - I think the church just went overboard with the purity thing in its later years, and stories grow as stories do... :rolleyes:

[Erebus]

Your take on Jesus

Never existed. The stories about him in the Bible are an amalgamation of various revolutionaries and preachers in the area at the time, with some hokey special-FX miracles thrown in for good measure.

[Morr]

I think that Jesus was a spiritual leader. He had new & interesting ideas that were "advanced" for his age & time. Kinda like a reform Rabbi. I think he was enlightened in many ways, and was very intellegent & a unique person who really just saw the hypocracy of the religous & political Jewish leadership at that time, and wanted to do something about it. I dont believe that he was the messiah. I dont believe he himself ever thought of him being the messiah or attempting to change the jewish religion drastically much less invent a new religion. I dont think he wanted people to worship him, but rather to listen to what he had to say and hopefully make them think & open their hearts to a new way of thinking & viewing the world & God. I believe that he was more of a Jewish Mystic/Jewitch, then anything. I think that the miracles he did, were probably blown up and made into bigger deals then what really happened - but I have no doubt that if he did perform healings, it was through herbology & such. I REALLY dont think that he died for ANYONE'S sins, because I think we are all accounted for our own wrong doings & mistakes and nobody can sacrifice themselves for anyone of us - Not even God. But I do think Jesus was a victim of political circumstance - from both sides, the romans and the jewish leadership.
I think that after his death, his followers changed a lot of the history & truth. I think that later on, the church did invent things and added things & twisted his words around.

[mucgwyrt]

Jewitch, I like that :hehehehe:

[Faeawyn]

Since we just had this discussion 2 threads down, I cut and pasted :)

Since I believe that the history of Jesus and the writings that followed can be interpretted many many different ways.....here is my interpretation...
I believe that Jesus was a great spiritual teacher. I believe he was sent by God to show man what he/she could be. He personified what humanity could be when we attain a level of enlightment. His "miracles" were things that we each try on a regular basis and refer to as "magick". Because of his level of enlightment....his closeness to God and human perfection, he was able to perform acts that we too could learn, if only we could let go of our negativities. He possessed the kindness and compassion that we as humans are supposed to aspire to.
I believe that when they say he died for our sins.....the truth is, he died for our faults, our weaknesses....our greed, jealousy, hate, etc....He was sent to show us the way....and those who were in power at the time, did not want the people following anyone else but them.....and the Christian/Catholic powers that later came to rule....wanted men to be afraid of God, to be afraid of sin...and to look to them for leadership and guidance.

[Ben Trismegistus]

My beliefs on Jesus were codified after reading the book Why Christianity Must Change or Die by John Shelby Spong, the Episcopalian Bishop of New Jersey (excellent book, highly recommend it). Bishop Spong believes that Jesus was a guy who realized that the way to "salvation" was to make the most of the "God Energy" within each of us. If we are all part of Creation, Bishop Spong postulates, then we all have a part of God within us (gee, where have I heard this before?) And the key to living a good life and achieving spiritual goals is getting in touch with the God Energy that is locked within each of us. Jesus, in his opinion, far from being the literal Son of God, was a man who was entirely in touch with the God within him. Such powers of self-realization, he says, can make a man seem almost supernatural, and it was the later Church that confused Jesus's access to personal divinity with the theory of Jesus's own divinity.

I agree completely with Bishop Spong's assessment. You can probably imagine that he has quite a few detractors in the Christian community.

[asamananara]

(clipped)
Jesus was a guy who realized that the way to "salvation" was to make the most of the "God Energy" within each of us. If we are all part of Creation... then we all have a part of God within us (gee, where have I heard this before?)... And the key to living a good life and achieving spiritual goals is getting in touch with the God Energy that is locked within each of us. Jesus... far from being the literal Son of God, was a man who was entirely in touch with the God within him.

This sounds alot like the "inner light" doctrine of the Society of Friends, the "Quakers", whom I hold in high regard. I'll have to read Spong's work. Thanks for the referral, Ben.
Spong... Hmm, why does that name sound familiar?

[Keith Dragon]

I was floating around annother message board I go to and I saw a post by a guy who I probably wouldnt catch with an "I love Jesus" bumpersticker. Long story short he had a very low opinion of Jesus so I got to wondering. Some people consider him a savior, some people consider him a maytr, a philosopher, a humanist, etc. Whats your particular take on him?
I think most people's angst towards Jesus is not really because of him, but because of what the Church has done through the years in his name. Jesus just gets the brunt of the stick. As far as I'm concerned, much of Jesus's original message has been warped, lost, or insidiously removed from existence for someone else's agenda.

In Truth, he had a message, that still to this day, though ignored by the Church for the most part, still is alive and well today. And it is not the details of his message that are important, but the archetypes put forth within his alletgorical messages.

Today, when someone says they hate, or dislike Jesus, or Cringe at his name, it is not because of something Jesus did, but what the Church has said he did. So it is the Church they should be angry at it, but people like a name the can lay all their anger upon, and to some, Jesus takes on a Hitleresque mystique.

Jesus spoke in allegory, not to be vague, but because language of the time could not withstand the weight of the abstract thoughts he had to say, and in time, his words have been taken literally because people removed from the main teacher tend to feel the need to organize the teaching in a hope to understand them.

Layers and layers of interpretation a built up from the original foundation of spirit put forth in Jesus's teachings. When the teacher is gone and out of the picture, and only his teachings are left behind, not even written down, but through verbal memory, the true meaning becomes lost.

To me, Jesus is a mentor, not a saviour. And through him and his teachings, I am learning to connect with that GOD ENERGY that Ben speaks of.

I believe this is his true lesson, that we can just let go and connect with that energy and use it for ourselves. And why not, stars do, galaxies do. We use this energy to fulfill our destinies, and for me that happens to be as an artist. I feel you come closets to the Creator, or God, through the Act of Creation ourselves. As above so below. Do what God does, he creates, not destroys.

Also, the Universe has not finished being created, it is still being created, in fact, we are the ones creating the Universe to be exactly how we desire it to be. But that is another story.

This is what I get from his teachings. Whether or not this is what he meant, does not matter to me, at least the specifics of it. What matters is how I'm going to take the baton from Jesus, and continue this relay race of human consciousness until we finally do get it right.

Dragon

[asamananara]

Jesus spoke in allegory, not to be vague, but because language of the time could not withstand the weight of the abstract thoughts he had to say, and in time, his words have been taken literally because people removed from the main teacher tend to feel the need to organize the teaching in a hope to understand them.

Dragon
One cannot describe the glory of heaven with the language of hell.

[Keith Dragon]

This sounds alot like the "inner light" doctrine of the Society of Friends, the "Quakers", whom I hold in high regard. I'll have to read Spong's work. Thanks for the referral, Ben.
Spong... Hmm, why does that name sound familiar?
From what I understand, the Society of Friends are descendants of the Gnostic Teachings of Christ. From the research that I've done, there is a line of descendancy that can be traced back from the Quakers to the Gnostics, who had a different view of Jesus than the Cult that became the Literalist backbone of the Catholic Church.

Also, it is believed that the Cathars are also descendants of the Gnostic Teachings.

Dragon

[Arwyn]

I believe in Jesus. I do believe he was the Messiah; that's something that never really left me when I started exploring other religions. But I don't agree with most churches. My old reverend was probably the smartest person I've ever met; she was no fanatic, but she understood Jesus' teachings and applied them appropriately. I wish more people in the church were like her. Unlike Fred Phelps, whom I refuse to call "reverend." People like him deserve to be excommunicated from the church for giving all Christians bad names.
For people who don't know who Fred Phelps is, he's a so-called "reverend" who preaches hate towards homosexuals. His website is called God Hates Fags; I'm not even kidding. He holds pickets at funerals of people who died of AIDS and has celebrations when people are killed in hate crimes. My theory is that the reason he's so against homosexuality is because he is one himself, a la "American Beauty." But I digress.
I believe in Jesus' word and his teachings. No matter what I experiment in, or what else I may believe, that's always been the core of my beliefs. I don't think that Christianity was meant to be what the church made it out to be.
Cheers :cheers:
-Arwyn :braindrai

[equinox2]

Or rather, my best guess as to what Jesus actually said and did. My best guess is based on the evidence I can get, so I’ll go over that first:

The evidence we have (ignoring anything that we know someone just made up)

Christian sources of information (in chronological order):

((Earliest))
Paul, who says very little about what Jesus did.
Our earliest Gospel – Mark
Mt & Luke
Later gospels like Thomas, Mary, John, etc.
((latest))


Jewish sources-
Only Josephus. Everything else like the Talmud, etc, is too late to be useful.

Non Abrahamic sources – almost none (Tacitus, Pliny, etc.)

There are a few others, but this list is pretty much all we have.

Whenever someone states something about Jesus, I want to know what source they are basing it on. If they aren’t basing in on a source, they are making it up, and their view doesn’t deserve the attention of anyone who cares what Jesus actually said and did.

Because we have lots of hard evidence that Christians were making up stories and adding them to our accounts, ideas from these sources must be tested. I use these three criteria to guess whether the story actually probably happened:

1. Is this story told in multiple, independent sources? If so it is more likely, but if not it could still be true.

2. Is the story possible in light of the culture and time it is supposed to occur (contexturally credible)? If not, ignore it.

3. Is it a story that was likely to have been made up by early Christians, like the time of Jesus’ death in John, the birth in Bethlehem, or the virgin birth? If not, it is more likely to be true. If so, it could still be true, but it could be made up.

Here is an example of how to apply these three criteria to a given story:
http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=57104&page=9&pp=10 (see post #86)

So, what do I get from applying these criteria to our sources above? The main result is that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, much like the Essenes, many Pharisees, many Sadducces, and many other Jews of his day. He had distinct differences with each of these groups as well. An “apocalyptacist” is one who believes that an “armaggeddon” type event is about to occur (you could use the term “doomsayer”). Nearly all of Jesus’ teachings, especially those that appear most likely to be true, reflect this. This is why most scholars and historians believe that Jesus was an apocalyptacist.

As far as “goodness” goes – I think Jesus was mostly good and kind. This fit with his apocalyptic view that God was about to overthrow the evil in the world, and the good would benefit – so be good so you will survive.

However, I try to resist the common urge people have to sugar-coat Jesus. He was not all good. Because of his apocalyptic view, he advocated abandoning one’s wife and kids to prepare for the apocalypse, he appears to have been racist against non-Jews, and told people that this apocalyptic view was more important than family or even having a sound financial plan. This is all because he didn’t seem to think there would be future to worry about, so why plan for it? Why save up money for when you get old, or for your kid’s education or inheritance? Everything will end very soon, so none of that matters to Jesus.


Overall though, Jesus had a lot of good teachings, and was much better toward women, for instance, than anyone else of his day. I think that the evidence is clear that Jesus was a normal human being, with some good points and some bad points, just like you or I.


You may also be interested in reading about many of the other ways people see Jesus, all of them are at least somewhat based on the evidence, though some people stretch the evidence quite a bit. Here are some other views: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

I agree with Antonius that Jesus was mostly lucky. There were many other people like him, and though many of them did end up with religions started because of them, none had the long lasting influence the religion about Jesus had. Part of it was luck, part of it was undoubtedly having a good PR guy in Paul, while most important was probably Constantine, who changed Christianity from an insignificant minority into a world power.


Erebus wrote that Jesus didn’t even exist. I agree that this is possible. However, I think that on balance, there is enough evidence for me to guess that he probably did exist (maybe with about 80% confidence).

So that’s my view. But don’t take my (or anyone else’s) word for it – assess the evidence yourself. Also, ask yourself – “Is my view of Jesus based on what I wish were true (such as Jesus as a radical feminist, or a New Age Guru, or a champion of the proletariat), or is my view based on the evidence, whether I like the result or not?”

For a class on tape about this, here is one view from a Scholar (not a Christian preacher). http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/643.asp As with an other view, compare it to the evidence and decide for yourself.

May you never thirst-

-Equinox

P. S.
Keithdragon wrote:


Also, it is believed that the Cathars are also descendants of the Gnostic Teachings.

Um, wrong "lost Christianity". The Cathar preseverved the ideas of the Manicheans, not the Gnostics. You can find out about the Manicheans by doing a web search. The quakers may have some ideas in common with the Gnostics, but they grew from protestant Christianity, not from Gnosticism, which was exterminated by the Roman Catholic church 1500 years ago. Gnosticism has been restarted just recently.

[Aine of the Fae]

A persons beliefs are valid to that person, whether they have solid evidential proof or not. Beliefs about Jesus, are for the most part, just that, beliefs. The "facts" can be construed to mean just about anything. Do enough digging and twisting and you can turn him into anything.

My personal beliefs about Jesus are undergoing a shift at the moment. I believe that he is a savior, although a personal savior, and that he shows a way to enlightenment, although not necessarily the way to enlightenment.

My view is that Jesus is similar to Buddha and others of the like. He mapped out a life plan for others to follow, and through following that life plan enlightenment might be achieved. Buddha mapped out a different life plan, the result is the same. Different plans fit different people.

I'm going to start studying the Biblical scriptures in their original languages. Of course this will be a massive challenge as I can't read or speak the original languages... but I have a feeling my beliefs about Jesus will change again as a result.

[Holly Ariadna]

I believe that Jesus is God's son, but on the other hand we're all God's sons and daughters, right? I believe Jesus was sent to the Earth with a very special mission, to show people what they could be. :uhhuhuh:

[equinox2]

Aine of the Fae wrote:


A persons beliefs are valid to that person, whether they have solid evidential proof or not. Beliefs about Jesus, are for the most part, just that, beliefs. The "facts" can be construed to mean just about anything. Do enough digging and twisting and you can turn him into anything.

Ah, Aine jumps into beat back my hard-nosed view! Thanks for providing the contrasting view.

On one hand, we can look at the data and know some things about Jesus. There are some conflicts in the data, and some speculation is inevitable, but we don’t have to just throw up our hands – we have some good evidence, in fact, more evidence than we have for some other people that really existed in history, like Imhotep or George Washington’s great grandmother. Back when Jesus existed, he was only one person. Regardless of who’s view of Jesus is closest to that, everyone can’t be correct. It’s true that enough data twisting can turn him into anything (hey, he’s a transformer! – remember those??) However, that doesn’t mean that all the twisted results are equally valid – some are closer to the real, historical Jesus than others are.

Is the idea of Jesus as an invisible pink unicorn who flew around using bat wings and tossed mentos (the freshmaker) ™ at Sadducces & Pharisees equally valid compared to the idea of Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary? (Everyone remember our huge “equally valid” discussion here: http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=51291 ??) If those two ideas are equally valid, then why use the name “Jesus”? We could use the name “Fred” or any other name. Why not believe that Bill Clinton wasn’t really some president, but instead that he is my personal advisor on deciding when to clean the gutters, and that he doubles as a wisdom sage for all questions about laundry in my mind? Is that “equally valid”?

On the other hand, we do need to be tolerant of other views, and if an idea works for someone spiritually, then maybe that is more important than if it is a realistic historical piece of data? If someone did believe that Bill Clinton wasn’t a president, but instead was the guru of gutters, who lived in 1874, then isn’t “correcting” that person a little bit mean?


Yes, these two approaches need to be balanced against each other. I tend to favor the first approach, but the second approach is treasured by many on this board, and I don’t deny that it is important too, but still see the first approach as more important.

To each his own I suppose.

Aine of the Fae, and everyone – May the galaxies light your path- :huddle:
P. S. – I’ll probably be gone until Sunday or Monday.

[Tullip Troll]

I think in a time of stoning women for being less then proper Mary got knocked up. To save face Mary was Married to Joseph who was possibly the town idiot or possibly the most undesirible man in town.
Mary and her family in their effort to try and save face, created the whole conception thingy. Then it just snowballed. So Jesus growing up is told he is special and perhaps teased and then one day he says what the heck and starts preaching and sooooooo on and soooo on...This is one of my many theories.

Jesus then got too famous and sick of all the stardom and ran away with Mary.

MheraPai

[Aine of the Fae]

equinox:

I said that each persons beliefs are valid to them That does not mean they are equally valid for everyone else. And yes, if those beliefs are based on misconceptions, the misconceptions need to be corrected without doing so to try to derail someones beliefs. Granted their belilefs will probably change.....


Oh and I thought you might like this:

[Tullip Troll]

Lol

[Sommerfugl]

Well, I personally think that Jesus was a doctor. I think he was spiritual and very advanced in his methods and because people couldn't understand his work, they made him out as much more than he actually was. It's very human to put others on pedestals. My two pence...
Jezxx

[Arwyn]

Is it just me or does the Jesus that Aine of the Fae posted bear a startling resemblance to Billy Crudup? :ahhhh:
Off topic. Sorry.
-Arwyn

[Aine of the Fae]

Who's Billy Crudup?

[WinterTree]

I was floating around annother message board I go to and I saw a post by a guy who I probably wouldnt catch with an "I love Jesus" bumpersticker. Long story short he had a very low opinion of Jesus so I got to wondering. Some people consider him a savior, some people consider him a maytr, a philosopher, a humanist, etc. Whats your particular take on him?

To me, Jesus was/is:

*A good man who made many sacrifices for his love of humanity
*A peacemaker
*A healer
*A teacher

Whether or not I consider Jesus the direct offspring of the Divine is still fuzzy to me....The point is he dedicated his life to giving others hope, and to teaching people how to live their lives with love, respect, and forgiveness for others. Although I don't worship Jesus, I still hold him in high regard for his selflessness and for his teachings.

[Dragonstarr]

I beleive he was a revolutionary who attempted to change the male dominated patriarchy by his teachings of equality, and peace, and love, and contrary to popular belief he actually had a mate...Mary Magdeline, who ia beleived to have been a sacred prostitute. But sadly after his death his teachings were twisted by those who still held fast to the patriarchal thinking of the times and used it as another way of enforcing power and destruction.
Blessings
~Dragonstarr

[Antoninus]

Im still curious as to why when Jesus heals people, its a miricle, but when we do it, were using magic given to us by the devil.

[Dragonstarr]

Im still curious as to why when Jesus heals people, its a miricle, but when we do it, were using magic given to us by the devil.
you know whats ironic...during the time Jesus was alive and healing people he was accused by the religious authorities of his day that he healing by the power of the devil....so he was in the same boat as us now....interesting huh
Blessings
~ravenwolf

[calria]

To me, Jesus was perhaps gifted with access to the powers of the God and Goddess to a greater extent than many others, but most of all, beyond the realms of miracles or magic, he understood the relationship of all humans to the Goddess, whether or not they themselves recognize it.
Also, and perhaps most of all, he knew that many who lived by other creeds and would, and always will, reject the goddess in the form we as witches recognize her, needed something to beleive that would bring them to some understanding of the necessity of peace and loving actions towards one another (the 3-fold rule and turn the other cheek parallels?) and so provided that.
Most of all, though, Jesus was one of us... a knower of the goddess and god. After all, he used the elements in his works... it's only in modern Christianity that that value has been lost. And the true translation of the supposed biblical quotes against the craft are not against all, but against the harmful.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I think in a time of stoning women for being less then proper Mary got knocked up. To save face Mary was Married to Joseph who was possibly the town idiot or possibly the most undesirible man in town.
Well, that's highly unlikely. At the time, carpenters were sought after, and they became quite wealthy and respected. Joseph was probably quite well-to-do. I would say that it was probably more of a shotgun wedding, if you know what I mean.


Mary and her family in their effort to try and save face, created the whole conception thingy. Then it just snowballed. So Jesus growing up is told he is special and perhaps teased and then one day he says what the heck and starts preaching and sooooooo on and soooo on...This is one of my many theories.
No, the Virgin Birth was invented by the Gospel writers after Jesus's death, in order to make Jesus's life conform to more of the OT prophecies (Isaiah, in this case).

[Antoninus]

I do think Jesus would be ashamed of his followers now. Hes been transformed into something I dont think he ever was. The other day I saw a picture of Jesus painted on the side of a building, he was this big 6 foot 5 guy with loooong blonde curly hair, blue eyes, hardly any beard at all and I was like "Whaaaa?"

And I dont mean just physically, Jesus accepted people that society had rejected and he taught his disciples to do the same. So now why today are some, SOME, Christians so ardently opposed to different groups? Both social and political.

[Ben Trismegistus]

And I dont mean just physically, Jesus accepted people that society had rejected and he taught his disciples to do the same. So now why today are some, SOME, Christians so ardently opposed to different groups? Both social and political.
I agree completely. If there's one message that comes through loud and clear from reading the Gospels, it's that Jesus did not discriminate about who he spent time with. He hung around with prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, everyone that society at large shunned. His biggest message was one of acceptance.

[Isildae]

I believe "Yeshua" was the son of a god, much like Adonis, or Osiris. He was in his time, a magician perhaps, certainly he was a mystical healer, and a necromancer among many other things.

He was also part human, and so he certainly must have also, thought, felt , and acted like one.

I believe he was also a Jew, and a rabbi, and so probably married. . .Maybe to Mary Magdalene, or Mary of bethany, or both. :heybaby:

I also believe he died and was resurrected(Tammuz much?)not so much to save us from our sins, but to balance the cosmic scales, which is something that seems to need to be done every thousand years or so, by various deity's. He fulfilled his role as divine king(like Osiris, Odin, and Arthur) and died for his people, which is what Campbell and Frazer say kings are supposed to do.*shrugs*

I'm not a Christian, but Yeshua is a part of my pantheon(as is Magdalene) and he's a bit like the baby of the family. . .I bet him and Cernnunos have a lot to learn from eachother!

[Aine of the Fae]

I believe Mary of Bethany and the Magdelene are the same, although I need to do more reading on the subject to be sure. I also know that culturally, it would have been very, very strange for Jesus to NOT be married. It would have been something worth mentioning in the Bible and it's not mentioned at all. Marriage, and children, were so important for the Jewish people that to not be married would have caused a person to be an outcast, no one would have listened to him.

[Isildae]

I believe Mary of Bethany and the Magdelene are the same, although I need to do more reading on the subject to be sure. I also know that culturally, it would have been very, very strange for Jesus to NOT be married. It would have been something worth mentioning in the Bible and it's not mentioned at all. Marriage, and children, were so important for the Jewish people that to not be married would have caused a person to be an outcast, no one would have listened to him.

Not only that, but their were religious leaders at the time who thought that it was better for a rabbi to be stoned to death than to not be married. So yeah it was definitely frowned upon.

I do feel that Mary M. and Mary of Bethany were the same, it would make sense. That would have made Lazerus Jesus' brother in law, which would have also made sense. Also that was a very well to do family and that would have allowed Mary to afford the alabaster jar of oil(which would have cost a full year's wage back then) with which she annointed Jesus with, which also alludes to her being his wife because he even said she was preparing him for burial, which was a custom reserved for the wife.

Interesting stuff! :D

[Aine of the Fae]

Lazarus' being Jesus' brother-in-law makes a LOT of sense, particularly in light of the story of bringing Lazarus back, the anger the family felt that Jesus' hadn't gotten there in time to heal him, the sadness Jesus' felt that Lazarus' died, and his willingness to go even more out of the ordinary to raise him from the dead. It's one thing to heal a person, but to bring them back from the dead? That's just huge, and I think the person would have to be really, really important for that one.

[Keith Dragon]

Um, wrong "lost Christianity". The Cathar preseverved the ideas of the Manicheans, not the Gnostics. You can find out about the Manicheans by doing a web search. The quakers may have some ideas in common with the Gnostics, but they grew from protestant Christianity, not from Gnosticism, which was exterminated by the Roman Catholic church 1500 years ago. Gnosticism has been restarted just recently.

Um, not quite. Some scholars do believe that there is credible evidence that the Cathars came from the Bogomils in the Balkans, which were the preservers of the Paulian Gnostic beliefs.

Also Manicheans wer preservers of Gnostic Teachings as well.

Dragon

[Sylvan]

Whats your particular take on him?
Here goes my two cents...

The church I grew up in, the Jesus of today was pushed moreso than the miracle-worker in the bible. Meaning the Jesus you pray to, the Jesus you ask into your heart, the Jesus that Sits at the Right Hand of the Father.. Yadda yadda... Not so much of the parables and tales of his miracles, unless they were directly related to the Jesus of Today.

He was a tattletale. The Pastors and elders and even the prophet were constantly proclaiming that Jesus had told them that you did such-and-such bad thing. Alllll the time. Adults were told that Jesus had told the pastor that they had sinful spirits, Jesus told on their lustful hearts... Jesus told on everybody.

I know that's not really the normal view of him. I went and saw the Passion, and some things clicked into place alot clearer watching the movie than they ever did while in church. My view of Communion has changed totally from that movie.

So there's alot of mistrust for him on my part.

Looking at the guy in the bible who did cool stuff... I'm not sure. He may have been a historical person, but aspects of his story definitely seem to have other origins.

I can't really form a completely objective thought about him. My head was wound up in a cocoon of spiderweb lies, and it's still fuzzy, over 10 years after we left that church. *shrug*

[Aine of the Fae]

Here goes my two cents...

The church I grew up in, the Jesus of today was pushed moreso than the miracle-worker in the bible. Meaning the Jesus you pray to, the Jesus you ask into your heart, the Jesus that Sits at the Right Hand of the Father.. Yadda yadda... Not so much of the parables and tales of his miracles, unless they were directly related to the Jesus of Today.

He was a tattletale. The Pastors and elders and even the prophet were constantly proclaiming that Jesus had told them that you did such-and-such bad thing. Alllll the time. Adults were told that Jesus had told the pastor that they had sinful spirits, Jesus told on their lustful hearts... Jesus told on everybody.

I know that's not really the normal view of him. I went and saw the Passion, and some things clicked into place alot clearer watching the movie than they ever did while in church. My view of Communion has changed totally from that movie.

So there's alot of mistrust for him on my part.

Looking at the guy in the bible who did cool stuff... I'm not sure. He may have been a historical person, but aspects of his story definitely seem to have other origins.

I can't really form a completely objective thought about him. My head was wound up in a cocoon of spiderweb lies, and it's still fuzzy, over 10 years after we left that church. *shrug*


Ok, coming from a church like that, I can see where it would probably take a very, very long time to get past it....

Jesus wasn't a tattletale! Think of the story of the adulterous woman who He saved from stoning!

[Morr]

Lazarus' being Jesus' brother-in-law makes a LOT of sense, particularly in light of the story of bringing Lazarus back, the anger the family felt that Jesus' hadn't gotten there in time to heal him, the sadness Jesus' felt that Lazarus' died, and his willingness to go even more out of the ordinary to raise him from the dead. It's one thing to heal a person, but to bring them back from the dead? That's just huge, and I think the person would have to be really, really important for that one.


actually, one approach to this story talks about how Lazarus' death & ressurection was actually a symbolic death of the body & ressurection into a new spiritual life & path... And Jesus, being the spiritual/cult leader, performed this kind of initiation ceramoney...

[equinox2]

Keithdragon wrote:

Um, not quite. Some scholars do believe that there is credible evidence that the Cathars came from the Bogomils in the Balkans, which were the preservers of the Paulian Gnostic beliefs.

Also Manicheans wer preservers of Gnostic Teachings as well.

Hi Keith-

There were many different Christianities that fall under the term "Gnostics", so I'm sure that some of the ideas were in common. The Cathars are clearly linked to the Manicheans, while it is not known if any of the Gnostic communities survived in any form. However, I don't want to go back and forth on this minor point, so I'd rather just read a bit to understand you perspective. Could you supply some reference or links for the "Paulian Gnostics", and some of those other groups you mention? Thanks-

Als0-
Ben wrote:

He hung around with prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, everyone that society at large shunned. His biggest message was one of acceptance.

Yes, to a large degree. However, we have to be careful to separate what Jesus may have actually done from what later Christians made up and wrote about him.

We also have to be careful to take all of the evidence into account, such as Mt. 15:23, where Jesus refuses to heal someone because they aren’t Jewish. Jesus says
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

There is more discussion of this story here: http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=57104&page=9&pp=10 See posts #86 and #94

Jesus certainly does appear to have taught acceptance, especially of women, the diseased, and other social outcasts. It isn’t clear that he extended this to non-Jews however. Remembering that he was an apocalyptic Jewish teacher in the 1st century, however, does make it likely that he condemned other religions. Hard to say.

[Isildae]

Here goes my two cents...

The church I grew up in, the Jesus of today was pushed moreso than the miracle-worker in the bible. Meaning the Jesus you pray to, the Jesus you ask into your heart, the Jesus that Sits at the Right Hand of the Father.. Yadda yadda... Not so much of the parables and tales of his miracles, unless they were directly related to the Jesus of Today.

He was a tattletale. The Pastors and elders and even the prophet were constantly proclaiming that Jesus had told them that you did such-and-such bad thing. Alllll the time. Adults were told that Jesus had told the pastor that they had sinful spirits, Jesus told on their lustful hearts... Jesus told on everybody.

I know that's not really the normal view of him. I went and saw the Passion, and some things clicked into place alot clearer watching the movie than they ever did while in church. My view of Communion has changed totally from that movie.

So there's alot of mistrust for him on my part.

Looking at the guy in the bible who did cool stuff... I'm not sure. He may have been a historical person, but aspects of his story definitely seem to have other origins.

I can't really form a completely objective thought about him. My head was wound up in a cocoon of spiderweb lies, and it's still fuzzy, over 10 years after we left that church. *shrug*

I defintely feel your pain there! I hated everything about Jesus for years and years, until I finally became a pagan and really thought about *him* and just him(not all that crappy dogma associated with him)and came to the undertanding that maybe he was just like me: misunderstood.

And so now he's a part of my pantheon, right next to Osiris and Krishna, and he seems to fit and belong just fine.

[Arwyn]

We also have to be careful to take all of the evidence into account, such as Mt. 15:23, where Jesus refuses to heal someone because they aren’t Jewish. Jesus says
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Yes, this is true. But then he heals the woman's daughter because she had such great faith in him.
We are thinking of the same story, right? :wtf: I'd go check my Bible but I have no idea where it is. :wth:
And by the way, Billy Crudup is an actor, famous for "Big Fish" and "Almost Famous."
Cheers :cheers:
-Arwyn

[Tigereyes99]

i belive that jesus wore a poncho an lived in mexico!!! by day he sold fajitas in mcdonalds and by nite he sold sombreros!!! its true ive seen it!!?

[WrathofCirce]

I believe that in the course of history certain individuals attain the status of deity..... going from real life hero/heroine..... to historical figure... to legend... and eventually are deified in the minds of man. This evolution from real life person to god usually takes at the very least several hundred years. I believe that these people/deities then become incarnations of the legend of gods/goddesses that already exist.... like Isis/Ishtar/Ceres/Demeter/Mary,et al. I believe Jesus was such a man. I think that Jesus, his god father and Mary were/are regular people who are incarnations of the Isis/Horus/Osiris trinity. They, as humans on earth, were not divine. Only after death and becoming legend did they become gods/goddesses. I know Mary isn't a goddess according to Christians, but she sure as heck acts like one. She's just been denied the label due to her gender.

[misschief]

i think jesus probably lived, but i can't say for sure. maybe he was important in some way.. but i have a hard time thinking he was anything near a god. i personally think the idea is ridiculous... but if you believe it.... good for you.not much else i can say.

[Dryad's Wyrd]

In my personal opionin, I think that Jesus must have been a very interesting individual. I have spent many a year doing bible studies with my grandma ( I really enjoy studying pretty well any religion). I like what Jesus stood for. When you really get through all the layers of history and opinion, all he really wanted people to realize was that love is everything. He taught us to love one and another, as well as ourselves, and if you really think about it, isn't he right? The world would be a much better place if we all loved and respected each other. I don't happen to be christian now, but I do fully believe in the power of Jesus.

[Whisper9999]

I was floating around annother message board I go to and I saw a post by a guy who I probably wouldnt catch with an "I love Jesus" bumpersticker. Long story short he had a very low opinion of Jesus so I got to wondering. Some people consider him a savior, some people consider him a maytr, a philosopher, a humanist, etc. Whats your particular take on him?

I personally hold the view that Jesus was lucky. At the time that Jesus lived, there were hundreds of "prophets" roaming the land, preaching thier different rhetoricts. Most of them probably wouldve been viewed as Jesus was, as a trouble maker, and been executed or exiled. I think Jesus and his teachings caught on because he was lucky. It couldve been any other guru or would-be prophet who's teaching caught on.

I think Jesus himself was a good guy, he accepted those who society had chosen to neglect. He dined with a prostitute, had a tax collector as one of his disciples, associated with Romans and gentiles. He stressed non-violent resistance, he saw the flaws in a corrupt system and had the balls to try and fix it WITHOUT slaughtering everyone in sight. So I think Jesus was a lucky, good man.

Well, as the resident Christian, I'll politely disagree. Some people know this, but some don't, so I'll point out that by the 3rd century AD secular historians estimate that between a tenth and a third of the Roman Empire was Christian. I assure you that there is a spiritual power behind "living" Christianity and of course I believe this is what propelled Christianity - non-violently I might add - through the Roman Empire. There were many miraculous "signs" as Christian call them.

This is the same phenomenon that we are seeing around the globe in China, Korea, Latin America, etc. Christianity is propelled by the miraculous and the "spiritual power" of which I am talking.

I am emphasizing this point because the SNL/MTV crowd as well as liberal educators relentlessly slam Christianity as a kind of "dead, whitey religion". But nothing could be further from the truth.

You may not agree with me that the spritual power behind Christianity is God Himself, but I have been on both the occult and traditional Christian side and can verify that the spiritual takes place in both. And it is this that is responsible for what Jesus has accomplished in the 2000 years...

[eva~]

A holy man-god, but then this planet has had many. Much blood has been spilt in the name of religion. I do not see how the two idealogies can co-exist. Doesnt the torah teach that witches should be burnt? The Christian bible teachings are no higher. It is not my path to try to make any sense of it, to those who can. :whatgives

[Aine of the Fae]

Christianity was not propelled non-violently through the Roman empire hun. Sorry, don't know who told you that but it's pretty much false.

First off, Christians were persecuted and martyred quite often by the Romans in the early years. Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians, even though it's likely he was involved. Native groups violently opposed the coming of Christianity, it was different and we all know how people react to something that is different.

Once Christians gained a foothold in the Roman empire, they became the violent ones, pushing forth in their mission to "save the world" even if they had to kill everyone to do so.

There is little about the history of Christian conversion that is peaceful, certainly not the early years.

And you are not the "resident Christian." I am :D

[Whisper9999]

Christianity was not propelled non-violently through the Roman empire hun. Sorry, don't know who told you that but it's pretty much false.

First off, Christians were persecuted and martyred quite often by the Romans in the early years. Nero blamed the burning of Rome on the Christians, even though it's likely he was involved. Native groups violently opposed the coming of Christianity, it was different and we all know how people react to something that is different.

Once Christians gained a foothold in the Roman empire, they became the violent ones, pushing forth in their mission to "save the world" even if they had to kill everyone to do so.

There is little about the history of Christian conversion that is peaceful, certainly not the early years.

And you are not the "resident Christian." I am :D

It's true that Christians were persecuted. But I meant that Christianity did not spread through violence as has, for example, Islam. When Christianity - which is not true Christianity imo - has attempted to spread through warfare and violence, that has always put the brakes on growth. God wants imo nothing to do with it...

But I feel you're still avoiding my point, although not deliberately I don't think. For say 60 AD to about 200 AD, Christianity exploded (without using violence) throughout the Roman Empire. Yes, I've heard that in the post-Constantine era, some "Christians" were violent, but I don't know the details on that.

But getting back to my point: post-Mao Christiainity has exploded in Communist China. Again, there have been conservatively at least 80 million converts there in the last few decades, again all nonviolently. So I'm not saying that Christians are perfect - I'm just saying that the stellar growth of past and current times has all occurred under admirable, miraculous conditions.

And, okay, I should have said resident, traditional Christian. ;) Will you accept that?

[Whisper9999]

A holy man-god, but then this planet has had many. Much blood has been spilt in the name of religion. I do not see how the two idealogies can co-exist. Doesnt the torah teach that witches should be burnt? The Christian bible teachings are no higher. It is not my path to try to make any sense of it, to those who can. :whatgives

First of all, I know hundreds of Christians and I can tell you that not one of them wants to see witches burned! I'm not saying there's not some weird, legalistic person who calls himself a Christian that would want something like that, but it's definitely out there in radical land as far as American Christianity.

Yes, the Torah does state that. Spiritism, i.e. channeling, polytheism, etc. were under similar bans. And, to be honest, the prophets, histories, etc. warn likewise. But keep this in mind: the Israeli nation was a relatively small middle eastern nation. If you were a witch or wanted to channel, you knew not to come live in Israel.

Also, keep in mind that the Hebrew people were in general not interested in proselytizing. Once they had their land, they for the most part stayed put. So, again, if you were in the ancient middle east you knew where they stood and what they stood for, i.e. they weren't just hoping for a "witch to burn" like some Roman Coliseum spectacle!

[flar7]

well, as the first recognized resident True Christian of MysticWicks... :rotfl:

a few points. The term witches and Torah need to be thought of in culture. The term does not translate as we think and witch is meant more as "poisoner." The later bible makes no distinction on the terms and so the mass idea of witchs, burnings, etc.

Christianity truly spread through love and understanding, but that is after (almost always) a series of violent attempts at conversion. Violence takes many forms, from convert or die, to, "if I catch you speaking your native tongue and praying to the high father I will whip you and wash your mouth with Lye soap." (american indian conversion 1800s to 1900s especially in the seminary schools) The Christians traditionally invaded other lands with the attempt to spread the faith, but was actually to pillage, then afterwards did true conversions happen with demonstrations by real christians of the teachings and methods. Rome converted at sword point when the first Christian emperor made it the "official" religion of rome, and the only one tolerated. This led to great periods of violence and fracture of the roman empire, its rebuilding as an empire, and perhaps to its actual dissolution as a military power and change to a Theological power that no one went against. The power of the Pope.

Jesus clearly states that many will sit at the table of Abraham that are not of the children of israel, and the points are made with the unclean woman and the hem of Jesus's robes, the Centurion, and the rich hebrew that asks how to get into heaven.

as to history diefying someone, that is not the case with Jesus, he was diefied immediately and then over time his mother assumed a similar status.

[Aine of the Fae]

And, okay, I should have said resident, traditional Christian. ;) Will you accept that?


:lol: Sure.

[Whisper9999]

well, as the first recognized resident True Christian of MysticWicks... :rotfl:

a few points. The term witches and Torah need to be thought of in culture. The term does not translate as we think and witch is meant more as "poisoner." The later bible makes no distinction on the terms and so the mass idea of witchs, burnings, etc.

Christianity truly spread through love and understanding, but that is after (almost always) a series of violent attempts at conversion. Violence takes many forms, from convert or die, to, "if I catch you speaking your native tongue and praying to the high father I will whip you and wash your mouth with Lye soap." (american indian conversion 1800s to 1900s especially in the seminary schools)

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Yes, this kind of atrocity did occur I am sure. To this I can only say that not everyone who calls themself a Christian is a Christian.

But this simply is not how Christianity got to where it is today. Example: in the 19th century there were almost no Christians on the continent of Africa. Missionaries to Africa at the time were known for going there with their coffins because they knew it was a death sentence to go there from disease and violence. Today southern Africa is predominantly Christian because of their efforts.

Now, I'm sure someone can find atrocities and perversions that "Christians" committed in southern Africa. I'm definitely not saying that all Christians are perfect or that there aren't psycho-missionaries who claim to be Christian. But I am saying you're grabbing onto the extreme, psychotic, anecdotal historical cases to prove that Christianity has spread by violence and that is simply not the case.

Just look at the hundreds of millions of Africans are Christian today through the non-violent, non-abusive efforts of generally admirable Christian missionaries...

[Whisper9999]

Again, evangelical/charismatic Christianity is now predominantly a non-white, rapidly growing religion that is slowly overtaking vast regions of the globe through the supernatural.

My hot religious tip: whatever you hear on TV or learn in school about Christianity is probably the opposite of the truth.

[flar7]

I believe if you spoke with a south african you might get a different story. They accepted christianity due to a lack of choices. Their culture being smothered by the remnants of colonial oppression, They had no self rule or voice, remember? Appartheid. Now its true that missionaries do some great work and they convert many, but they only have the access due mainly to oppression. Otherwise, they would have been killed stepping out of the boat for the most part.

The spread of Christianity as a faith is not even close to a bloodless thing, Jesus says so himself. Not the bringer of peace, he is a sword that will set houses against each other, sons against fathers, He teaches love and understanding, but those concepts are not readily accepted by all cultures, so you bash their heads until they quit killing you, and then lead by example.

A few web searches on south africa and its history will reveal some horrendous stuff, which is the majority.

and I do my research through news, internet, school and the likes, not TV or gossip. Other "non-whites" as you say, have little choice, look at the mainstream and consider their education alternatives as well as the fact that most of their traditional culture was wiped out.

[Whisper9999]

I believe if you spoke with a south african you might get a different story. They accepted christianity due to a lack of choices. Their culture being smothered by the remnants of colonial oppression, They had no self rule or voice, remember? Appartheid. Now its true that missionaries do some great work and they convert many, but they only have the access due mainly to oppression. Otherwise, they would have been killed stepping out of the boat for the most part.

The spread of Christianity as a faith is not even close to a bloodless thing, Jesus says so himself. Not the bringer of peace, he is a sword that will set houses against each other, sons against fathers, He teaches love and understanding, but those concepts are not readily accepted by all cultures, so you bash their heads until they quit killing you, and then lead by example.

A few web searches on south africa and its history will reveal some horrendous stuff, which is the majority.

and I do my research through news, internet, school and the likes, not TV or gossip. Other "non-whites" as you say, have little choice, look at the mainstream and consider their education alternatives as well as the fact that most of their traditional culture was wiped out.

I said southern Africa deliberately, not the country of South Africa...Again, you're choosing the extreme cases. Yes, there was slavery in the Bible belt for years. I don't deny that. But the Great Awakening and other revivals that turned this country upside down and that were responsible for the growth of Christianity in our country were - you got it - completely non-violent.

Again, if you go from the Muslim dominated northern countries of northern Africa heading southward, you will run across hundreds of millions of Christians. You're ignoring the fact, I feel anyway, that the vast majority peoples left their tribal animism non-violently without a gun pointed to their head as you claim...

And yes, yes, "Christians" burned witches at Salem as well - I got the joy of hearing that wonderful story about 100 times growing up. You'll probably throw that out there as well or maybe the Crusades since that was rammed down all of all our throats a hundred times in our completely unbiased educational system. But, again, none of these things have anything to do with the vast majority of growth in Christianity.

[flar7]

wow. Ok. If you dont want to acknowledge historical fact, thats up to you. The american indian is now mostly christian and speak english, not because they had a "great awakening" but because their children were stolen and sent to boarding schools and seminaries. History. Read it. That was during the "Great Awakening" and the spreading of Christian Charity. The first reality of Christianity to me is accepting our foundations and understanding how it happens. The world conversion to Christianity as it stands owes to pressure/violence from the powers with clout. Mostly, the U.S. Its also the reason for the high increase in english language useage. Its just the accepted language and religion of education, its something the Catholic church recognized early on in its foundation. If you educate the young, they grow up believing what you want.

This is likely why the muslim faith is fighting so extreme, even the ones who are what we call..."calm." They fear the loss of culture that comes with assimilation as practiced by most of the Christian nations. Why is Isreal immune? Because, they do not seek to spread their religion as evangelist, theirs is a born into faith for the most part.

You destroy or cripple a culture as history shows, and you change their religion. Their old gods could not save them, so perhaps these invaders have something. Otherwise, you can guarantee the majority of the world would still be pagan for the most part, or more likely islamic.

You wish to call it a "miracle" thats cool and your opinion, but not likely the fact by the strict defnition of a miracle. If you accept that everything is a miracle, then the spread of christianity is miracle, bloody, but a miracle.

[Whisper9999]

wow. Ok. If you dont want to acknowledge historical fact, thats up to you. The american indian is now mostly christian and speak english, not because they had a "great awakening" but because their children were stolen and sent to boarding schools and seminaries. History. Read it. That was during the "Great Awakening" and the spreading of Christian Charity. The first reality of Christianity to me is accepting our foundations and understanding how it happens. The world conversion to Christianity as it stands owes to pressure/violence from the powers with clout. Mostly, the U.S. Its also the reason for the high increase in english language useage. Its just the accepted language and religion of education, its something the Catholic church recognized early on in its foundation. If you educate the young, they grow up believing what you want.

This is likely why the muslim faith is fighting so extreme, even the ones who are what we call..."calm." They fear the loss of culture that comes with assimilation as practiced by most of the Christian nations. Why is Isreal immune? Because, they do not seek to spread their religion as evangelist, theirs is a born into faith for the most part.

You destroy or cripple a culture as history shows, and you change their religion. Their old gods could not save them, so perhaps these invaders have something. Otherwise, you can guarantee the majority of the world would still be pagan for the most part, or more likely islamic.

You wish to call it a "miracle" thats cool and your opinion, but not likely the fact by the strict defnition of a miracle. If you accept that everything is a miracle, then the spread of christianity is miracle, bloody, but a miracle.

Your example of the Native Americans only supports my position further. The gospel has had great difficulty penetrating Native American cultures and one of the reasons is just the reason you cited. Again, that supports my thesis that whenever Christianity has tried to move into a culture with violence or abuse, the growth is severely stunted...

"Crippling and destroying a culture" is a knee-jerk accusation that is completely unsupported as well. Take Communist China: there are 80 million plus new Christians in that country w/o western missionaries. The gospel has spread like a fire through the native population and by the native population. This is the same with the recent explosion of the gospel in Latin America and Korea as well. There is no significant western influence there nor has there been for decades, yet this is precisely when the country blew wide open.

And I can't fault you for saying this stuff, because of course the western press and liberal educational systems aren't going to bother to report what is truly happening with Christianity.

Again, your claims are largely irrelevant for the modern church as it exists today. I can't emphasize it enough: the modern Christian church is mostly indigenous, non-white and based on legitimate supernatural miracles and not just the "miracle of existence" as you suggested.

I also find it strange that you would imply that Christians do not have the miraculous. Are you suggesting that only pagans/native religions can have the supernatural? If you are, then we'll just have to agree to disagree...

[flar7]

no, christians have "true" miracles, but I dont think the ones your stating are such. Its a difference in christian dogma, christians are as diverse as any other religions.

and as I said, if you destroy a culture or cripple it, then the natives of that culture have to adapt.....socially, mentally, and in religion. Paganism among Native Americans is actually on the upswing and has been since the late 70's. I live on the Cherokee reservation, and I dont personally know any non christian indians. I imagine many arent, but profess christianity to avoid the stigma that comes with it here.

China is under heavy western influence as is most of the "modern" world now. There is no current escape from western culture, its why our language, "english" is sweeping the globe, its the path to technology and education. Not that we are that wise, merely that we are that rich, prolific, and aggressive. Japan would be a good example of american colonialism in a modern age.


also, this is my last post on this off topicwise. We are too far gone from the topic and am suggesting we get back on track fast.

[Valentinius]

I do wonder though, like how we all know that rock-stars are more famous when they die - was the whole crucifiction thing a PR stunt? Was it to best spread The Good Word? Would he have been so revered if he had died at 68 by choking on a fish bone?!

the buddha died of nothing else but of old age and is famous nontheless. Nevertheless I must admit his death would have been a jock if he had chocked on a fish bone


She thinks that Mary was visited by an alien (the angel) in a spaceship (the bright light and the star which the kings followed) and was impregnated in a classic abduction. (Hence the virgin birth). Then that Jesus was an alien human hybrid which is why he could do a whole host of miraculous feats

This sounds oddly raelian to me. is it so or has she just got problems in seeing mary beeing impregnated by nothing?

Who would Jesus be to me? A teacher or discloser of hidden truths. As human as any of use and as divine as any of us. He just woke up to his divine side. I like to think of him in a platonic way and think he is just an anybody who nurtured the divine aspects of his soul until he became barelly distinguishable from divinity himself. I guess he is occidents enlightend one, a bit like the budha.

what would his lesson's be? I think one of his main greifs was to see how the pharisee's had taken the religion away from the folk. Loking the knowledge up where no one could get at it and hereby creating dependency of the folk to the temple who could basically say what they wanted because no one was there to contradict them (or in right to).

I think all he wanted to do was give religion back to man, folk, the individual rather than the temple. I would say to be a christian in his point of view one needs no other temple than oneself and no other guide than the divine in each one of us.

I would say the fall came around at the end of the second century c.e. where church fathers got the power they had been lacking until then ( they were burnt before) from this point on there was a worry of uniformization of the christian religion. One started burning heretics, who were christians just the same, because their interpretation of the gospels and of Jesus were a bit differant to the official churchs.

At this stage I believe religion was once again taken away from the public to become the matter of high dignitorys who were the ones to detain the truth and whoever said elsewise must clearly be wrong.

to me jesus is someone who incites reflexion and church (at least at the time) punished reflexion. all they wanted was blind faith in their reflexions about god.

I don't mean to say this is still the case bishop spong in ben trimesgistus is a clear example that there is some freewill in nowaday church. I just find it a pity that it took us so long to start asking ourselves questions again.

read you soon.
Val.

[Ben Trismegistus]

My hot religious tip: whatever you hear on TV or learn in school about Christianity is probably the opposite of the truth.
Here's another tip: Whatever you hear in church about Christianity probably isn't true either.

And what exactly are "liberal educators"?

[Whisper9999]

Here's another tip: Whatever you hear in church about Christianity probably isn't true either.


Well, I assume what you're getting to here is the gnostic gospels. Of course, to me that's not Christianity, but I recognize that to most people on this board gnostic Christianity is much more palatable so they emphasize that fact. It all comes down to the choices one makes as to who God is, what the Cross did, etc.

But, again, like it or not traditional Christianity is doing very well and that is what is being reported to in Churches. I am always shocked at what I'll call the "denial" on these boards of how well Christianity is doing. I expected - don't ask me why - for someone to say, "Well, that's great for you and your path."

Instead, I seem to get a lot of references to gnosticism and to the few Christian "horror" stories. But, hey, what do I expect on a pagan board, right?

As far as "liberal eduction", I just meant that public school education in American is 90-100% coming from a non-theistic worldview unless you're growing up in certain parts of the Bible Belt. As a youth, you just get bombarded with propoganda over and over and over ad nauseum. Theism is a perfectly reasonable alternative, both scientifically, morally and spiritually and educators treat it as if it is the Black Plague...

[Valentinius]

As far as "liberal eduction", I just meant that public school education in American is 90-100% coming from a non-theistic worldview unless you're growing up in certain parts of the Bible Belt. As a youth, you just get bombarded with propoganda over and over and over ad nauseum. Theism is a perfectly reasonable alternative, both scientifically, morally and spiritually and educators treat it as if it is the Black Plague...

I don't mean to be disrespectfull but in what is christianism scientifically reasonable. Someone who walks on water brings dead to live, etc etc doesn't soud very scientific to me.

[Whisper9999]

no, christians have "true" miracles, but I dont think the ones your stating are such. Its a difference in christian dogma, christians are as diverse as any other religions.

and as I said, if you destroy a culture or cripple it, then the natives of that culture have to adapt.....socially, mentally, and in religion. Paganism among Native Americans is actually on the upswing and has been since the late 70's. I live on the Cherokee reservation, and I dont personally know any non christian indians. I imagine many arent, but profess christianity to avoid the stigma that comes with it here.

China is under heavy western influence as is most of the "modern" world now. There is no current escape from western culture, its why our language, "english" is sweeping the globe, its the path to technology and education. Not that we are that wise, merely that we are that rich, prolific, and aggressive. Japan would be a good example of american colonialism in a modern age.


also, this is my last post on this off topicwise. We are too far gone from the topic and am suggesting we get back on track fast.

I'm not denying what you've said about the Native American culture. Again, I already conceded that point. But you're coloring your whole view of Christianity based on this extreme case and other extreme cases.

I don't think you care, but I'll mention that the explosion of the gospel in China started in the rural west. There was little western influence there. Again, you can believe if you want that the gospel is spreading out of a sort of "western imperialistic" sort of spirit, but that's simply not the case.

In S. Korea, for example, the church is about 25% of the population and some of the largest churches in the world are there. (Some of the congregations number in the hundreds of thousands.) This phenomenal growth has nothing to do with a western presence whatsoever. The growth all comes from incredible native Korean Christian leaders.

As far as miracles, I am talking about healings, prophecies, visions, etc. I am not talking about "explainable" miracles. This is how the church is growing in many parts of the world.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Well, I assume what you're getting to here is the gnostic gospels. Of course, to me that's not Christianity, but I recognize that to most people on this board gnostic Christianity is much more palatable so they emphasize that fact. It all comes down to the choices one makes as to who God is, what the Cross did, etc.
It's never a good idea to assume. No, I'm not referring to the gnostic gospels. I'm referring to pastors and congregations knowing nothing about their own religion outside of what was indoctrinated in Sunday School.


But, again, like it or not traditional Christianity is doing very well and that is what is being reported to in Churches. I am always shocked at what I'll call the "denial" on these boards of how well Christianity is doing. I expected - don't ask me why - for someone to say, "Well, that's great for you and your path."
Of course it's doing well. No one is suggesting otherwise.


Instead, I seem to get a lot of references to gnosticism and to the few Christian "horror" stories. But, hey, what do I expect on a pagan board, right?
That's a good question. What DO you expect?


As far as "liberal eduction", I just meant that public school education in American is 90-100% coming from a non-theistic worldview unless you're growing up in certain parts of the Bible Belt. As a youth, you just get bombarded with propoganda over and over and over ad nauseum. Theism is a perfectly reasonable alternative, both scientifically, morally and spiritually and educators treat it as if it is the Black Plague...
That's a complete load of crap. Public school education comes from a SECULAR worldview. God should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with education. It's not your teacher's job to tell you about Jesus. It's easy to make it look like educators are vehemently atheist when you consider that they are constantly under an onslaught by religious groups who believe that "freedom of religion" means that they should be allowed to force their religion on anyone. But if you want us to drop all the Christian horror stories, I'll have to ask you to drop the ridiculous assertion that Christianity is somehow "persecuted" in this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Whisper9999]

I don't mean to be disrespectfull but in what is christianism scientifically reasonable. Someone who walks on water brings dead to live, etc etc doesn't soud very scientific to me.

Well, as I've been stating, miracles still occur so that is entirely reasonable to me. But what I was referring to is the nice match of the Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Life to the JudeoChristian scriptures.

[Whisper9999]

It's never a good idea to assume. No, I'm not referring to the gnostic gospels. I'm referring to pastors and congregations knowing nothing about their own religion outside of what was indoctrinated in Sunday School.


Of course it's doing well. No one is suggesting otherwise.


That's a good question. What DO you expect?


That's a complete load of crap. Public school education comes from a SECULAR worldview. God should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with education. It's not your teacher's job to tell you about Jesus. It's easy to make it look like educators are vehemently atheist when you consider that they are constantly under an onslaught by religious groups who believe that "freedom of religion" means that they should be allowed to force their religion on anyone. But if you want us to drop all the Christian horror stories, I'll have to ask you to drop the ridiculous assertion that Christianity is somehow "persecuted" in this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Uh oh. I touched a nerve. Actually, it's not that simple because you CANNOT teach from a secular viewpoint. There is no such thing. You only have three choices:

1. Teach humanism.
2. Teach non-humanism.
3. Present both.

Our schools have chosen #1 almost universally. You can't see this I don't think, cuzz you're operating from within your own paradigm, but it is the truth...

[Valentinius]

Well, as I've been stating, miracles still occur so that is entirely reasonable to me. But what I was referring to is the nice match of the Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Life to the JudeoChristian scriptures.

so you think that scientifically it is proven that some allmighty person created world as it is in seven days with the help of noone hereby denying the théory of evolution?

I think there is nothing scientific therein it's part of christian mythology and tries to pass messages images more than any scientifique truth, no?

[Valentinius]

does humanism have to pass by christianism or religion for that matter? couldn't one just imagine philosophy and ethics as source of humanistic teaching instead?

[Whisper9999]

so you think that scientifically it is proven that some allmighty person created world as it is in seven days with the help of noone hereby denying the théory of evolution?

I think there is nothing scientific therein it's part of christian mythology and tries to pass messages images more than any scientifique truth, no?

No, I'm old earth as it is called. Please, please, don't associate me with young earth creationism. I want nothing to do with that!

[Whisper9999]

does humanism have to pass by christianism or religion for that matter? couldn't one just imagine philosophy and ethics as source of humanistic teaching instead?

There's good in every philosophy and you can learn from everyone. But the two are mutually exclusive at their core.

[Valentinius]

There's good in every philosophy and you can learn from everyone. But the two are mutually exclusive at their core.

I don't quite get what your saying here. are you saying philosophy and religion are mutually exclusive?

[Ben Trismegistus]

Uh oh. I touched a nerve. Actually, it's not that simple because you CANNOT teach from a secular viewpoint. There is no such thing. You only have three choices:

1. Teach humanism.
2. Teach non-humanism.
3. Present both.

Our schools have chosen #1 almost universally. You can't see this I don't think, cuzz you're operating from within your own paradigm, but it is the truth...
That's insane. Religion has no place in school. Plenty of subjects can be taught without any reference whatsoever to God or religion. And for those that do touch on religion (like art history, literature, or biology) those religious viewpoints can be mentioned without taking a stand one way or another. To say that you cannot teach from a secular viewpoint is an insult to teachers.

[Whisper9999]

That's insane. Religion has no place in school. Plenty of subjects can be taught without any reference whatsoever to God or religion. And for those that do touch on religion (like art history, literature, or biology) those religious viewpoints can be mentioned without taking a stand one way or another. To say that you cannot teach from a secular viewpoint is an insult to teachers.

This is a huge topic. But I'm with you: I don't directly want religion in schools. But whether you care to admit it or not, there's definitely a bias and secular humanistic emphasis in our public education curriculum that does not need to be there. I don't want to argue about it though - I can only say that I was in 'em and I've worked with youth for years and they have reported this same ridiculous bias so I know it's not just me...

Now as far as my sanity - I can't really make an unbiased comment you know...

[Whisper9999]

I don't quite get what your saying here. are you saying philosophy and religion are mutually exclusive?

No, sorry: I"m saying that traditional Christianity is mutually exclusive from all other religions. It is the only religion that I know of that begins with God reaching toward man. All others eventually distill down to man's efforts toward God (or gods or the universe or whatever the ultimate is). There is therefore an antagonism, a tension that will always exist between the two different worlds. But, again, I feel that I can learn from everyone....

[Ben Trismegistus]

This is a huge topic. But I'm with you: I don't directly want religion in schools. But whether you care to admit it or not, there's definitely a bias and secular humanistic emphasis in our public education curriculum that does not need to be there. I don't want to argue about it though - I can only say that I was in 'em and I've worked with youth for years and they have reported this same ridiculous bias so I know it's not just me...
Well, I don't care to admit it because it's not true. There is no bias in public education - there is simply a philosophy to keep religion out of public education.

And if you say you don't want religion in schools, but you think the "bias" is "ridiculous", how do you want for public schools to handle religion?

[Whisper9999]

Well, I don't care to admit it because it's not true. There is no bias in public education - there is simply a philosophy to keep religion out of public education.

And if you say you don't want religion in schools, but you think the "bias" is "ridiculous", how do you want for public schools to handle religion?

Perhaps it will help if I give a few specifics:

1. I already implied this, but I'll go into more detail for clarity. As a theist, you are BOMBARDED with negative examples of theism. The negativility relentlessly permeates the curriculum and you probably wouldn't notice it unless you were - you got it - the poor theist who got his or her face spit in every other day.

There are NEVER any examples of anything positive to do with theism. Now that may be an exagerration but not by much.

Let me elaborate:

1. The Salem Witch trials. Over and over and over and over I heard about this. The NEA must have made this mandatory for every grade and every subject.
2. The Crusades. Over and over and over you hear about the Crusades. It's almost as if nothing else occurred in the Middle Ages. You never hear about any of the positives in the monastic movement. Just the Crusades. Over and over and over. You get my drift I think...
3. Galileo. You hear over and over and over how the Church persecuted Galileo. And kids aren't idiots. They get the clear message: the Church is comprised of religious zealots who love to squelch all human thought and rational ambition.
4. Greek Mythology. Greek mythology is presented repeatedly until you just want to puke, apparently another mandatory NEA subject. Then if you have enough humanistic teachers, you get constant barbs and implications that believing in God is no different than the Greeks believing in their "silly mythologies". Nice...
5. Inherit the Wind, et al. Then when you get to high school, you study relentlessly, as if this was the corenerstone of all human thought, the Scopes Monkey Trials. Again, the clear implication is that all Christian thinkers and leaders are William Jennings Bryant-type buffoons.

Now, let's go to the positives or at least the neutral about Christianity and theism in general. Hmmm. I can't think of any! Well, what do you know? I guess I was right after all!

So how does a theistic kid come out of our public educational system? Feeling like everyone thinks he or she's an idiot, believing in blind faith with a pantheon of historical losers as his or her ancestral predessors.

Neutral? No way. Not while the NEA and humanists are in charge of higher education and the curriculum.

[flar7]

dont know where you are then, but I live in the bible belt and we hardly even mentioned the salem witch trials in history, they were downplayed during my education until college, and implied that... "actually, not that many died as result"

all we discussed of the crusades was mainly the need for land and expanisist theory, that religion aided in providing an outlet for youth and as a means to raise the men to do it. Spreading the faith was not a big part of the subject, and it was 1 chapter out of 4 years of high school.

Gallileo, we only discussed his accomplishments and I think the date he died.

Greek mythology are electives here.

Inherrent the What? we never covered it in high school.
the monkey trials, about a chapter. most of history that is studied is less than a chapter's worth at one time. thats not "bombarded" with it where I live. Oklahoma.

We still have plenty of religion and religous type stuff in our schools here, yes, it is slowly getting picked on and taken out.....and if its equally done, and appears to be since we have no other religous dogmas at all in our schools for the most part, then I am ok with it I guess.

AND NOW, lets steer back on topic. Jesus tells his followers and part of his message is, that all that he did, any one can do. He may have been the son of God, but he was a man as well. Mortal. Many forget this. I feel Jesus is likely appalled at the state of Christianity as it is now or even the idea of Christianity as a faith, and I feel its the heart of a huge problem that is mentioned in the bible. I do realize that in Christianity their is the acknowledgement of Jesus, but from there it splinters so badly that much is lost.

[Whisper9999]

dont know where you are then, but I live in the bible belt and we hardly even mentioned the salem witch trials in history, they were downplayed during my education until college, and implied that... "actually, not that many died as result"

all we discussed of the crusades was mainly the need for land and expanisist theory, that religion aided in providing an outlet for youth and as a means to raise the men to do it. Spreading the faith was not a big part of the subject, and it was 1 chapter out of 4 years of high school.

Gallileo, we only discussed his accomplishments and I think the date he died.

Greek mythology are electives here.

Inherrent the What? we never covered it in high school.
the monkey trials, about a chapter. most of history that is studied is less than a chapter's worth at one time. thats not "bombarded" with it where I live. Oklahoma.

We still have plenty of religion and religous type stuff in our schools here, yes, it is slowly getting picked on and taken out.....and if its equally done, and appears to be since we have no other religous dogmas at all in our schools for the most part, then I am ok with it I guess.

AND NOW, lets steer back on topic. Jesus tells his followers and part of his message is, that all that he did, any one can do. He may have been the son of God, but he was a man as well. Mortal. Many forget this. I feel Jesus is likely appalled at the state of Christianity as it is now or even the idea of Christianity as a faith, and I feel its the heart of a huge problem that is mentioned in the bible. I do realize that in Christianity their is the acknowledgement of Jesus, but from there it splinters so badly that much is lost.

Interesting. I know the Bible Belt can be different and even mentioned it in one of my threads. Btw, I'm thankful for many aspects of my eduction, but that part of it was very disturbing and is for many kids. And humanists wonder why Christian parents want to home school...

But you lost me: what does Jesus' death and/or comment that "greater works than I do shall you do because I go to the Father" have to do with a failure of the Church or an "appalling state of Christianity" as you put it? Both of these actually show the power of the Church. Let me explain why:

1. Jesus death uniquely shows God's reaching out to man. As I mentioned, Christianity is the only religion that makes this claim (that I know of).
2. "Greater works" is only because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which comes through rebirth. In other words, every Christian that I know that has had miracles in or through his/her life claims it is through the power of the Holy Spirit (and Jesus' death of course).

So I'm missing what you're saying. How can the miraculous and one of the very backbones of the Church and its growth be such a negative thing in your eyes?

[flar7]

you're missing what I am saying mostly. Jesus never intended for a church to be founded on his teachings. His teachings are what God meant for man and the children of isreal, he merely tried to wake them up to it. He was just there to show the way and pay the price. His example as a mortal man, that any man can do this. All his miracles are possible by any person who will have that level of faith. I am not referring to specific quotes of Jesus. It is the sum of the message.

As to the state of the church, that is a long argument that I will avoid in this thread. Suffice to say, I think(others as well. some sites out there to look at) that the church is in the wrong on most of its doctrine now and timeframe. The idea of Jesus as saviour, good, the other details they are screwing up? not so. So, the spread of the faith by the sword as it were, is a bad thing, and still happening.

[equinox2]

Wow, a huge drifting thread with many topics! Please excuse my short responses to these – they are only short to keep this short, not to sound mean (I have a lot of respect for everyone in this conversation).

About violence/non-violence in spread of Christianity:

Whisper wrote:


For say 60 AD to about 200 AD, Christianity exploded (without using violence) throughout the Roman Empire. Yes, I've heard that in the post-Constantine era, some "Christians" were violent, but I don't know the details on that.

Christianity spread mostly nonviolently from 60 AD to 200. It’s hard to be violent when you are a tiny minority. In 325 when Constantine converted, only about 3 to 5% of the Roman Empire’s population was Christian. With the Emperor a Christian, it suddenly became popular, and the government helped foster it (both violently and non-violently) during the 4th century. Within 100 years (by 400 AD), most of the population was Christian. It pretty much wasn’t until then that it got violent. Augustine (who is very important to both Catholics and Protestants today) argued that conversion under threat of death was fine according to the Bible (in his letter #185). Details – here are some: http://ethnikoi.org/persecutions.html
There are other sources for information on violence done to spread Christianity. Just search under “Charlemange”, “Crusades” or similar topics. Of course, all of these must be compared to contradicting sources and examined critically, not just accepted because they are printed (same for those Christian aplogeticists who work to portray Christian spread as nearly all non-violent). Everyone should recognize that Christianity can spread quite well nonviolently (such as it did at first), and that has been spread violently at other times. Both sides need to recognize both facts.



But, again, like it or not traditional Christianity is doing very well and that is what is being reported to in Churches. I am always shocked at what I'll call the "denial" on these boards of how well Christianity is doing.

It depends on how you define “doing very well”. Yes, Christianity is growing, but nearly all of the growth worldwide is in 3rd world countries, and “heretical” groups like the Mormons are growing faster there. In the western world, Christianity has been largely abandoned in Europe, partly in Canada, and in the US Christianity is declining by about 1% a year. In the US, about 75% are Christian, with about an even split between the more “fundamentalist” type and the more “moderate” type. However, the fundamentalists are growing, while the moderates are shrinking, giving an overall slow decline. This polarization of Christianity has been going on for at least 30 years. (Some moderates become fundamentalists, some leave Christianity all together, that’s why the number of fundamentalists can grow while the total proportion of Christians in the US can shrink at the same time). Is that “doing well”? It could indeed be, depending on how you view it.

Whisper9999 wrote:

I don't directly want religion in schools. But whether you care to admit it or not, there's definitely a bias and secular humanistic emphasis in our public education curriculum that does not need to be there.

This “secular humanistic emphasis” is a common conspiracy idea I hear from Christians when they want to promote Christianity in schools. They go back to keeping religion out of schools when other religions come up. A “secular humanistic emphasis” hasn’t been my experience, and I agree with what Ben has written so I won’t repeat it.


I"m saying that traditional Christianity is mutually exclusive from all other religions. It is the only religion that I know of that begins with God reaching toward man. All others eventually distill down to man's efforts toward God (or gods or the universe or whatever the ultimate is).

I agree that Christianity (at least as described in the Bible) is mutually exclusive of all other religions. That’s one of the main points in both the old and new testaments. I also partly agree with the second point. It appears to be a useful distinction to make between religions. At least a few other religions (though probably not most, as Whisper points out) can have a god or gods reaching out to humans, especially Paganism, as we see in this thread:

http://www.paganforums.org/showthread.php?t=61697

Lastly:

Whisper9999 wrote:

No, I'm old earth as it is called. Please, please, don't associate me with young earth creationism. I want nothing to do with that!

Whisper, I agree about YEC – there are a ton of problems. After evolution began to be discussed in the 1870’s, Creationism sprung up. By the 1880’s many of the problems with YEC were seen, and many Creationists became old earth creationists (OEC). However, by the mid 1900, OEC rapidly declined in popularity, as Christians were faced with deciding to follow “man’s truth” (science and evidence) verses “god’s truth” (the Bible, read literally). Today probably less than 10% of Christians are OEC. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only large denomination of OECs – they sprung up as denomination in the late 1800’s when OEC was popular, and have kept it. Note that OEC is very different from theistic evolution. OEC says that God created life forms divinely (and without evolution) at different times over billions of years, while theistic evolution says that God USED EVOLUTION to create life over billions of years. OECs like Hugh Ross and the Jehovah’s witnesses are generally not liked by most creationists because they allow the nose of the camel into the tent, shall we say. Here are some data:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm

As for my take on Jesus (back on topic!), I described that back on post #15, page 2. Basically a thoroughly Jewish apocalyptic preacher, in some ways like John the Baptist or the Essenes. This is the view of many scholars as well (though certainly not all - views of Jesus are all over the map http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html).

May you never thirst-

[Ben Trismegistus]

1. I already implied this, but I'll go into more detail for clarity. As a theist, you are BOMBARDED with negative examples of theism. The negativility relentlessly permeates the curriculum and you probably wouldn't notice it unless you were - you got it - the poor theist who got his or her face spit in every other day. Well, I have no idea what school YOU went to, but I can tell you that Christianity was WELL in force where I grew up.


1. The Salem Witch trials. Over and over and over and over I heard about this. The NEA must have made this mandatory for every grade and every subject.That's an important part of American History. And the lesson taught by studying the Salem Witch trials is about tolerance and due process, not about religion.


2. The Crusades. Over and over and over you hear about the Crusades. It's almost as if nothing else occurred in the Middle Ages. You never hear about any of the positives in the monastic movement. Just the Crusades. Over and over and over. You get my drift I think...The Crusades were the single biggest thing that happened in world history between the years 1100-1400. To ignore the Crusades would be a HUGE hole in one's education.

There's a subtle difference here. The Crusades are world history - they affected everyone regardless of religion or nationality. Therefore they are significant from a historical point of view. The positive aspects of the monastic movement are church history - they really didn't have much of an effect on people outside of the monastic movement itself. Therefore, they are less important from a historical standpoint.


3. Galileo. You hear over and over and over how the Church persecuted Galileo. And kids aren't idiots. They get the clear message: the Church is comprised of religious zealots who love to squelch all human thought and rational ambition.Um... the clear message I got was that Galileo was one of the great scientific geniuses of human history. Do you think his story should be glossed over?


4. Greek Mythology. Greek mythology is presented repeatedly until you just want to puke, apparently another mandatory NEA subject. Then if you have enough humanistic teachers, you get constant barbs and implications that believing in God is no different than the Greeks believing in their "silly mythologies". Nice...I never learned Greek Mythology in school. I would have liked to.

However, I should point out that greek mythology is taught as MYTHOLOGY, not as religion. That has no bearing whatsoever on Christianity as a religion. There was a class in my high school called "The Bible as Literature", which essentially taught Christianity as mythology. I never had time to take it, but it sounded pretty interesting. There was actually a large number of protests from Christians who thought that Christianity should be presented as nothing other than absolute truth.


5. Inherit the Wind, et al. Then when you get to high school, you study relentlessly, as if this was the corenerstone of all human thought, the Scopes Monkey Trials. Again, the clear implication is that all Christian thinkers and leaders are William Jennings Bryant-type buffoons.Again, a very important moment in American history. Look, I'm really sorry that the Church has made asses of themselves as so many critical moments in world history. I don't know what to tell you. If there were more positive examples of Church behavior in world history, I'm sure those would be taught to, but there just aren't. It's not bias to point out that the Church plays the role of villain at many seminal points in history - it's just the way it is.


Now, let's go to the positives or at least the neutral about Christianity and theism in general. Hmmm. I can't think of any! Well, what do you know? I guess I was right after all!Well, you saved me the trouble of having to ask. What positives about Christianity would you like taught in school? Stuff that actually fits the bill as history.


So how does a theistic kid come out of our public educational system? Feeling like everyone thinks he or she's an idiot, believing in blind faith with a pantheon of historical losers as his or her ancestral predessors. That sounds like your own personal baggage. I don't know any other Christian kids who came out of the public school system feeling like their beliefs had been belittled.

[Sleet]

He dined with a prostitute, had a tax collector as one of his disciples, associated with Romans and gentiles. He stressed non-violent resistance, he saw the flaws in a corrupt system and had the balls to try and fix it WITHOUT slaughtering everyone in sight.

Bingo. He was an example - here's what a good man can accomplish. His ideas weren't new, but for some reason they caught on when he said 'em. (Among some of his followers, anyway.)

Was he the Son of God? Hell, I don't know. Was he even real, or a legend, or an outright invention of an ancient powermonger? I don't particularly care, really. The ideas he left behind - judge not, love thy neighbor, forgive and be forgiven, no greater love, etc. - are some bloody good ideas.

I'm no longer a Christian, but it isn't Jesus's fault I left.

[Whisper9999]

Wow, a huge drifting thread with many topics! Please excuse my short responses to these – they are only short to keep this short, not to sound mean (I have a lot of respect for everyone in this conversation).

About violence/non-violence in spread of Christianity:

Whisper wrote:

...............

Whisper, I agree about YEC – there are a ton of problems. After evolution began to be discussed in the 1870’s, Creationism sprung up. By the 1880’s many of the problems with YEC were seen, and many Creationists became old earth creationists (OEC). However, by the mid 1900, OEC rapidly declined in popularity, as Christians were faced with deciding to follow “man’s truth” (science and evidence) verses “god’s truth” (the Bible, read literally). Today probably less than 10% of Christians are OEC. Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only large denomination of OECs – they sprung up as denomination in the late 1800’s when OEC was popular, and have kept it. Note that OEC is very different from theistic evolution. OEC says that God created life forms divinely (and without evolution) at different times over billions of years, while theistic evolution says that God USED EVOLUTION to create life over billions of years. OECs like Hugh Ross and the Jehovah’s witnesses are generally not liked by most creationists because they allow the nose of the camel into the tent, shall we say. Here are some data:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_over.htm

As for my take on Jesus (back on topic!), I described that back on post #15, page 2. Basically a thoroughly Jewish apocalyptic preacher, in some ways like John the Baptist or the Essenes. This is the view of many scholars as well (though certainly not all - views of Jesus are all over the map http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html).

May you never thirst-

Nice post. I agree with most of the stats - not everything mind you - but also not enough to argue about any more since I seem to have gotten everyone off course. And, of course, we disagree on our interpretation of the historical data and I still think everyone grossly underestimates the historical good of Christianity, but I don't see the point in going into that here, plus it's off topic...

[Whisper9999]

Well, I have no idea what school YOU went to, but I can tell you that Christianity was WELL in force where I grew up.

That's an important part of American History. And the lesson taught by studying the Salem Witch trials is about tolerance and due process, not about religion.

The Crusades were the single biggest thing that happened in world history between the years 1100-1400. To ignore the Crusades would be a HUGE hole in one's education.

..................

Again, a very important moment in American history. Look, I'm really sorry that the Church has made asses of themselves as so many critical moments in world history. I don't know what to tell you. If there were more positive examples of Church behavior in world history, I'm sure those would be taught to, but there just aren't. It's not bias to point out that the Church plays the role of villain at many seminal points in history - it's just the way it is.

Well, you saved me the trouble of having to ask. What positives about Christianity would you like taught in school? Stuff that actually fits the bill as history.

That sounds like your own personal baggage. I don't know any other Christian kids who came out of the public school system feeling like their beliefs had been belittled.

Our perceptions and experiences are so different - that's really all I can say...

[Khuinaset]

Just replying to this post...dunno if these were brought up, but I saw this and had to reply.


1. The Salem Witch trials. Over and over and over and over I heard about this. The NEA must have made this mandatory for every grade and every subject.

Hasn't been mentioned once in our curriculum. (I'm an entering-tenth grader in SW Missouri)


2. The Crusades. Over and over and over you hear about the Crusades. It's almost as if nothing else occurred in the Middle Ages. You never hear about any of the positives in the monastic movement. Just the Crusades. Over and over and over. You get my drift I think...

Got a month's worth of videos two years ago.


3. Galileo. You hear over and over and over how the Church persecuted Galileo. And kids aren't idiots. They get the clear message: the Church is comprised of religious zealots who love to squelch all human thought and rational ambition.

Hasn't been mentioned so far.


4. Greek Mythology. Greek mythology is presented repeatedly until you just want to puke, apparently another mandatory NEA subject. Then if you have enough humanistic teachers, you get constant barbs and implications that believing in God is no different than the Greeks believing in their "silly mythologies". Nice...

Nope. We've never done Greek mythology. Ever.


5. Inherit the Wind, et al. Then when you get to high school, you study relentlessly, as if this was the corenerstone of all human thought, the Scopes Monkey Trials. Again, the clear implication is that all Christian thinkers and leaders are William Jennings Bryant-type buffoons.

Saw the video once in seventh grade, in an elective debate class. Hasn't been touched upon since.

Nor have I ever heard anyone mentioning any of these things ever occuring in our high school, because *everyone* would throw a fit. However, on the other side, our sex ed class mentioned several times that if you had sex before marriage God would be displeased, there were mandatory prayers(very Christian-oriented ones, not like a moment of silence) before all of the school plays shows for the cast and crew, evolution is always talked about with quotes around it(or finger-quotes if the teacher was speaking...drives me nuts), etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is most definitely NO bias against Christianity here. At all. Whatsoever. And from what I've heard about schools in the surrounding areas, it's not any better there.

[Whisper9999]

Just replying to this post...dunno if these were brought up, but I saw this and had to reply.



Hasn't been mentioned once in our curriculum. (I'm an entering-tenth grader in SW Missouri)



Got a month's worth of videos two years ago.



Hasn't been mentioned so far.



Nope. We've never done Greek mythology. Ever.



Saw the video once in seventh grade, in an elective debate class. Hasn't been touched upon since.

Nor have I ever heard anyone mentioning any of these things ever occuring in our high school, because *everyone* would throw a fit. However, on the other side, our sex ed class mentioned several times that if you had sex before marriage God would be displeased, there were mandatory prayers(very Christian-oriented ones, not like a moment of silence) before all of the school plays shows for the cast and crew, evolution is always talked about with quotes around it(or finger-quotes if the teacher was speaking...drives me nuts), etc. etc. ad nauseum. There is most definitely NO bias against Christianity here. At all. Whatsoever. And from what I've heard about schools in the surrounding areas, it's not any better there.

Noone told me that a prerequite of posting on mw was life in a small town in the Bible Belt - just kidding.

Well, you brought up a bizarre memory. In my sex ed class, we had a sex ed flick that was a thinly disguised porno flick. It showed a female doing you know what to herself all the while the narrator explained that this was okay, etc. I also remember that at the end of the movie, it showed a (rather homely) couple doing the "wild thang".

I'm not sure we all grew up on the same planet...

[Khuinaset]

Noone told me that a prerequite of posting on mw was life in a small town in the Bible Belt - just kidding.

Well, a lot of people don't consider MO Bible Belt :p (I consider it borderline Bible Belt...) I was just saying, though, I've never experienced anything like you've said, nor heard of anything like it, around here or elsewhere. Maybe it's a local problem? *shrugs*

As for sex ed, our's was just...pathetic. I think I mentioned it in another thread...we basically had this lady come in and tell us for two weeks every conceivable reason(ranging from reasonable, to...not) why we do not want to have sex until marriage. That^ was one, and then she tried to tell us that birth control either makes you infertile for the rest of your life, or doesn't work at all, condoms only have a 30-40% sucess rate, etc. I wouldn't think someone handing us all condoms and telling us to go for it would be good sex ed either...I guess it's just weird to want a middle-of-the-road approach :p

[Whisper9999]

Well, a lot of people don't consider MO Bible Belt :p (I consider it borderline Bible Belt...) I was just saying, though, I've never experienced anything like you've said, nor heard of anything like it, around here or elsewhere. Maybe it's a local problem? *shrugs*

As for sex ed, our's was just...pathetic. I think I mentioned it in another thread...we basically had this lady come in and tell us for two weeks every conceivable reason(ranging from reasonable, to...not) why we do not want to have sex until marriage. That^ was one, and then she tried to tell us that birth control either makes you infertile for the rest of your life, or doesn't work at all, condoms only have a 30-40% sucess rate, etc. I wouldn't think someone handing us all condoms and telling us to go for it would be good sex ed either...I guess it's just weird to want a middle-of-the-road approach :p

Get out of town!

Is MO the astronomical symbol for Mars or something? I guess we couldn't have more opposite experiences.

I think I'm still traumatized from my education. But don't worry - the therapy is really helping. I could tell you more stories, but I'd distract the thread even more than I already have. But I know it's not local cuzz I'm in a completely different state now and a lot of the kids here deal with the same issues...

And, yes, that was a pathetic sex ed lecture. But at least your hometown saw a skyrocketing birth rate for a few years after that little talk...

[Khuinaset]

Get out of town!

Is MO the astronomical symbol for Mars or something? I guess we couldn't have more opposite experiences.

I think I'm still traumatized from my education. But don't worry - the therapy is really helping. I could tell you more stories, but I'd distract the thread even more than I already have. But I know it's not local cuzz I'm in a completely different state now and a lot of the kids here deal with the same issues...

And, yes, that was a pathetic sex ed lecture. But at least your hometown saw a skyrocketing birth rate for a few years after that little talk...

Well if it makes you feel any better I'm sure I'll have trauma from here too :p I hate it here...and yeah, I think we've had 5-10 teen pregnancies in the last year or two, at least, our of three hundred kids in the HS, that might not be skyrocketing, however it does seem like a lot in such a tiny town...but...yes..we're really off topic. sorry to everyone who was on topic, I'll be quiet now :)

[Whisper9999]

Well if it makes you feel any better I'm sure I'll have trauma from here too :p I hate it here...and yeah, I think we've had 5-10 teen pregnancies in the last year or two, at least, our of three hundred kids in the HS, that might not be skyrocketing, however it does seem like a lot in such a tiny town...but...yes..we're really off topic. sorry to everyone who was on topic, I'll be quiet now :)

My HS senior class started with close to 800 and ended at around 650. A significant %, or so I heard, were teen pregnancies. Guess that sex ed really paid off...

[flar7]

Admin Mode

8. No off-topic posts and/or thread hijacking is allowed. Conversations are allowed to sway as we do not want to stifle discussion. But, constant posting of off-topic posts will be considered thread hijacking and lead to moderation. Constant abuse of this rule can lead to threads being closed.



lets try to get back on topic.

[NarYave]

Jesus is great man

[Keith Dragon]

Jesus is great man
He sure is, too bad they made a religion out of him.

Dragon