Old Question Revisited - Who is Jesus?

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

By what authority do you tell another Christian that part of their bible, that claims to be divinely inspired, is wrong and needs to be discarded? How far are you realistically going to get with that? I know realism isn't your thing, but bear with me. Where does that conversation generally lead?

It doesn't need to be discarded. It can be aknowledged and discerned not to lead to peace.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So....neither side thinks it is doing as God or Allah would want?

The average person on either side, is just thinking of their safety and freedom to live without violence. There are extremists who will use religion as their excuse to commit violence but what's underneath that is more geo-political and the solutions, IMO, will have to be non-violent.

 

[chansen]

It doesn't need to be discarded. It can be aknowledged and discerned not to lead to peace.

You're assuming all Christians want peace. I don't see that. Not unless it's on their terms.

The loudest rejections to your proposals are going to come from other Christians.

 

[chansen]

@chansen: can you take that verse that I quoted and find anything wrong with how I interpreted it? Basically, if anyone takes a verse that Jesus is said to have spoken and uses it to do harm to others, they are misusing it anyway, IMO - given that he commanded us to love our neighbours and our enemies.

Jesus commanded a lot of things. To hold that one on a pedestal, because you happen to like it, doesn't make it the most important. Doesn't even mean he really said it.

 

[Mendalla]

You're assuming all Christians want peace. I don't see that. Not unless it's on their terms.

The loudest rejections to your proposals are going to come from other Christians.

Therein lies the biggest problem. There is no monolithic block called Christians and that is largely because there is no one, accepted-by-all way to see Jesus. Back to my statement about projecting our hopes, fears, etc. on to him.

 

[chansen]

Jesus didn't kill anybody. He came to show people that he was the human face of God - and he taught non-violence. He was about Peace. In Beatitudes, he said "blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God".

If Jesus was supposed to be God, then you're off by more than an order of magnitude. If Jesus was just a guy, you're right, he only killed trees. But there are some frightening premonitions about him in Revelation, which I know you're not a fan of, so it doesn't exist for you.

 

[chansen]

Therein lies the biggest problem. There is no monolithic block called Christians and that is largely because there is no one, accepted-by-all way to see Jesus. Back to my statement about projecting our hopes, fears, etc. on to him.

And back to my point that the bible can be used to justify almost any action. People see in the bible what they want to see.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

If Jesus was supposed to be God, then you're off by more than an order of magnitude. If Jesus was just a guy, you're right, he only killed trees. But there are some frightening premonitions about him in Revelation, which I know you're not a fan of, so it doesn't exist for you.

It exists, but it was someone's vision/ dream containing a lot of symbolism, the way dreams can do - and I think a whole lot of it ,the vison itself, was fear motivated. Which, what I think it does is illustrates what happens when Jesus' teachings are coopted by those seeking power and control and use fear as a motivator. Time and time again, it plays out like a horror story in real time. I don't think it should have been in the Bible, but I am reminded that those who chose it were, at the time, themselves powerful authorities.

 

[chansen]

So, anything in the bible you don't agree with is someone co-opting Jesus' teachings? Or is it metaphor? I'm losing track of the excuses.

 

[crazyheart]

I started this thread. I have not left you. I am reading along. You are all having a good discussion and / or debate. Well done. Keep up the good work.

 

[Mendalla]

And back to my point that the bible can be used to justify almost any action. People see in the bible what they want to see.

Unfortunately, that phenomenon does not stop with the Bible or even religion. Neither the Soviet Union nor the PRC under Mao looked anything like Marx's proletarian state and they still got to claim him as a inspiration. Even science is not immune once people start trying to interpret their world in terms of its findings (which is inevitable because humans always interpret their world in terms of one paradigm or another). Social Darwinism took evolution and used it to justify some pretty outrageous racial crap. Science at least has a standard for objectifying the search for knowledge, but that still doesn't stop people from subjectively interpreting the implications of that knowledge.

This is not entirely about religion, but about the human tendency to see the world in our terms and to project whatever bothers or excites us on to people, events, etc. Religion is clearly more prone to it (it's almost inherent in the notion of faith) but any field of human thought can be affected. We are ultimately subjective beings guided as much by feelings and intuition as reason and empirical knowledge (otherwise we'd be Vulcans). Somehow, we have come to terms with that and learn how to make it work for us instead of against us, because we are not going to overcome it (in ourselves, who knows how an AI might think).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@chansen...at the very least I don't think it's placement should have been at the end of the Bible because the order in itself is a medium that sends a particular message, psychologically. But hey, Marshall McLughan didn't figure that idea out until much later.

 

[chansen]

It's end times prophesy. Where else do you put it?

 

[Mendalla]

It's end times prophesy. Where else do you put it?

Well, Daniel is in the middle and also contains some last time prophesy (or at least text that is claimed to be by a certain segment, I'm not sure Jews actually read it that way) so I'm not sure that putting it at the end is strictly necessary. I suspect it's at the end because it was the last to be accepted into canon (biblical scholars, feel free to confirm or deny that).

 

[chansen]

Unfortunately, that phenomenon does not stop with the Bible or even religion. Neither the Soviet Union nor the PRC under Mao looked anything like Marx's proletarian state and they still got to claim him as a inspiration. Even science is not immune once people start trying to interpret their world in terms of its findings (which is inevitable because humans always interpret their world in terms of one paradigm or another). Social Darwinism took evolution and used it to justify some pretty outrageous racial crap. Science at least has a standard for objectifying the search for knowledge, but that still doesn't stop people from subjectively interpreting the implications of that knowledge.

This is not entirely about religion, but about the human tendency to see the world in our terms and to project whatever bothers or excites us on to people, events, etc. Religion is clearly more prone to it (it's almost inherent in the notion of faith) but any field of human thought can be affected. We are ultimately subjective beings guided as much by feelings and intuition as reason and empirical knowledge (otherwise we'd be Vulcans). Somehow, we have come to terms with that and learn how to make it work for us instead of against us, because we are not going to overcome it (in ourselves, who knows how an AI might think).

Right, but in the case of the bible, when we think it agrees with us, we don't mistake that for simple agreement with the author like any other book, but with divine permission. It's one thing for someone to fool himself into thinking Marx has his back. It's quite another for someone to think he has God Almighty on his side. That's f***ed up.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Jesus commanded a lot of things. To hold that one on a pedestal, because you happen to like it, doesn't make it the most important. Doesn't even mean he really said it.

He commanded, in a nutshell, to love one another.I believe he did say what the bible claims he said. And so, if a person uses the message for good, interprets it in a way that does no harm, why do you have such a problem with it?

 

[chansen]

Because it's a stupid reason to do good. And you can use the same reason - biblical authority - to do bad.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

You're assuming all Christians want peace. I don't see that. Not unless it's on their terms.

The loudest rejections to your proposals are going to come from other Christians.

Yeah. And the Bible tells the story of people like that, too. Jesus was killed by people who didn't want peace. Again, it tells the human story, about the Human Condition. What we do with that is on our own hearts and minds.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Because it's a stupid reason to do good. And you can use the same reason - biblical authority - to do bad.

It's already in our hearts to do good or not. Jesus is an eternal symbol of that, that serves as a reminder. That's also what I mean when I say that I am being led back to being agnostic/ SBNR. I'm always going to look at the Bible and question the bad stuff, the stuff that leads to hate and violence, and be inspired by the good stuff - no matter what any legalistic dogma anyone tries to pressure me into says. I am always going to choose to see it that way. It's settled, for me, by Grace.

 

[chansen]

And there are always going to be others who embrace the bad stuff, and question the good. And at the very least, you'd have a debate on your hands as to who was being more faithful to the bible.

And hey, I can appreciate that you are agnostic and questioning. Your rejection of the bad parts of the bible is to be commended. But those parts will always be there, waiting for the next person to take them seriously.