Why I Am Not A Christian

[Sky Dancer]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

 

[Anguille]

There are certain aspects in Buddhism that are definately positive and friendlier toward human beings. For one thing, everything is impermanent. Even if you earn a hell realm in your next life the negative karma of being in hell will eventually be purified.

Christians have it easy in some respects. They have only one hell. Buddhists have 13, but ours are impermanent. There are heaven realms too, but they aren't to be aspired to. The heaven realms are impermanent and much harder lives to reach enlightenment in. The lifetime we all aspire to is the human realm for it's unique advantages for attaining enlightenment. The other fortunate and unique teaching to Buddhism are the teachings on emptiness. So, in one way, we talk about these realms as if they truly existed and in another way they can be thought of as states of mind.

All beings will one day be enlightened. We all have that potential, even the meekest or most vile creature on the earth has Buddha nature-essential purity. We just have to wake up and realize it.

Interesting. I've heard it said that Buddhism is not really a religion as much as it is a philosophy. I would suppose that would depend on what one's definition of religion is.

Buddhists debate whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. Considering that meditation is a core practice and that the teachings of Buddhism are not mere conceptual philosophy I think it falls somewhere in between.

Perhaps it represents an evolution of religion from superstition and ritual into something intellectual.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Intellect and debate are core to Buddhism. We are taught to take nothing on faith but to question everything. Nonetheless, confidence or faith in meditation grows out of experience.

 

[Newby]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That said then it's all of our tasks to put things in perspective by talking about context. For example, the charge that the symbol of the cross is masochistic. Roman Catholics display the cross in somewhat gory detail showing obvious signs of Jesus' agony while some Protestant churches merely use the plain cross.

One is not more 'right' than another, just different expressions. The cross is a universal symbol of the Christian faith.

 

[Anguille]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

 

[CurveLight]

... this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt. This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.

Could you expand on that? I'm not following what you're trying to say here. What negates Jesus' teachings exactly?

The concept of Original Sin attempts to explain why people hurt themselves and each other and why evil exists. Many claim Jesus came to make amends between us and God for OS and that is why they say "Jesus is the only way." That was not Jesus' message or teachings. He was saying everyone is a beautiful child of God regardless of nationality, gender, etc. Jesus came to disabuse the concept of OS and show atonement is within ourselves through relationships with each other and that a Temple-clergy system was at odds with what "God" represents.

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus stated forgiveness from God was conditional upon our forgiveness for each other. People have largely ignored that out of selfishness. What is more appealing to the masses? Work to make amends with each other out of trying to find love for each other and being accountable or......say you "accept Jesus" and that's basically it? The modern concept of Salvation is designed to inculcate people with OS to constantly make them feel guilty about being fallible selfish human beings. Jesus took the opposite position and admitted our faults but did it with a license of freedom in admitting we are all fuck ups in one way or another. By obsessing over Original Sin most people never have to opportunity to actually study Jesus' teachings and many Christians shy away from this dilemma out of being theological paralyzed by the prospect of a complete world ethos makeover.

Buddhism is much much closer to Jesus' teachings than Christianity and it is mind blowing how Mahayana Buddhism has a Trinitarian philosophy very close to Christianity and both schools were formed about the exact same time but thousands of miles apart from each other.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

Your innocent childhood reaction to the crucifix is not uncommon. That said, there are depictions of wrathful meditational deities in Tibetan Buddhism that are quite shocking until one has teachings about them and understands what they symbolize. Generally, these depictions of the wrathful side of compassion are hidden from a neophyte because of the misunderstandings that arise.

Sometimes something shocking is a wake up call. Which would you rather have? A swat on the bottom by your mother to keep you from running out in front of that car or getting squished under its wheels. That's an example of wrathful compassion.

 

[CurveLight]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

This is why I have no respect for you. Stop trying to hide behind the child that first saw the cross because your argument has been based on the charge that Jesus "willingly embraced" the torture and crucifixion.

Do you really believe everyone can't see the fact you have always ignored Jesus begged to avoid the crucifixion? Your dishonesty is tiresome. Try to be honest sometimes....it's not as scary as it seems...

 

[Newby]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

What you don't seem to get is that people do not worship the cross. You have very little understanding or a warped understanding of the concept of christianity. You seem to have stalled at whatever perceptions you've gotten from a minority and refuse to move away from that perception. I think you would benefit from trying to be a little more open minded and throwing away your inaccurate perceptions or at least try to not apply them across the board. Your perceptions of Christians are only true for a very small minority, but you don't seem to understand or believe that.

 

[Newby]

... this one is pretty accurate because while not all Christians share the same concepts of Original Sin the mainstream version is easily one of the biggest theological and practical problems of carrying over antiquated ideas into the New Testament that engender circular guilt. This arguably negates Jesus' teachings and explains why 2000 years later Christianity very closely resembles the Temple system Jesus fought against.

Could you expand on that? I'm not following what you're trying to say here. What negates Jesus' teachings exactly?

The concept of Original Sin attempts to explain why people hurt themselves and each other and why evil exists. Many claim Jesus came to make amends between us and God for OS and that is why they say "Jesus is the only way." That was not Jesus' message or teachings. He was saying everyone is a beautiful child of God regardless of nationality, gender, etc. Jesus came to disabuse the concept of OS and show atonement is within ourselves through relationships with each other and that a Temple-clergy system was at odds with what "God" represents.

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus stated forgiveness from God was conditional upon our forgiveness for each other. People have largely ignored that out of selfishness. What is more appealing to the masses? Work to make amends with each other out of trying to find love for each other and being accountable or......say you "accept Jesus" and that's basically it? The modern concept of Salvation is designed to inculcate people with OS to constantly make them feel guilty about being fallible selfish human beings. Jesus took the opposite position and admitted our faults but did it with a license of freedom in admitting we are all fuck ups in one way or another. By obsessing over Original Sin most people never have to opportunity to actually study Jesus' teachings and many Christians shy away from this dilemma out of being theological paralyzed by the prospect of a complete world ethos makeover.

Buddhism is much much closer to Jesus' teachings than Christianity and it is mind blowing how Mahayana Buddhism has a Trinitarian philosophy very close to Christianity and both schools were formed about the exact same time but thousands of miles apart from each other.

So, you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then? How do you then interpret all of his comments about the only way to God being through Him?

 

[Sky Dancer]

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

What you don't seem to get is that people do not worship the cross. You have very little understanding or a warped understanding of the concept of christianity. You seem to have stalled at whatever perceptions you've gotten from a minority and refuse to move away from that perception. I think you would benefit from trying to be a little more open minded and throwing away your inaccurate perceptions or at least try to not apply them across the board. Your perceptions of Christians are only true for a very small minority, but you don't seem to understand or believe that.

Kissing the crucifix or Jesus feet could be percieived as worshipping the cross. It's a Catholic practice.
http://www.fisheaters.com/crucifixes.html

 

[Newby]

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

What you don't seem to get is that people do not worship the cross. You have very little understanding or a warped understanding of the concept of christianity. You seem to have stalled at whatever perceptions you've gotten from a minority and refuse to move away from that perception. I think you would benefit from trying to be a little more open minded and throwing away your inaccurate perceptions or at least try to not apply them across the board. Your perceptions of Christians are only true for a very small minority, but you don't seem to understand or believe that.

Kissing the crucifix could be percieived as worshipping the cross.

It's honoring what the cross stands for, the sacrifice for humankind so that their transgressions may be forgiven, not the tangible and physical act of crusifixion.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What you don't seem to get is that people do not worship the cross. You have very little understanding or a warped understanding of the concept of christianity. You seem to have stalled at whatever perceptions you've gotten from a minority and refuse to move away from that perception. I think you would benefit from trying to be a little more open minded and throwing away your inaccurate perceptions or at least try to not apply them across the board. Your perceptions of Christians are only true for a very small minority, but you don't seem to understand or believe that.

Kissing the crucifix could be percieived as worshipping the cross.

It's honoring what the cross stands for, the sacrifice for humankind so that their transgressions may be forgiven, not the tangible and physical act of crusifixion.

Yes. I agree. It's a symbolic practice of devotion. That doesn't mean it can't be misunderstood. Even some Protestant religions consider that practice idol worship.

 

[Anguille]

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

Your innocent childhood reaction to the crucifix is not uncommon. That said, there are depictions of wrathful meditational deities in Tibetan Buddhism that are quite shocking until one has teachings about them and understands what they symbolize. Generally, these depictions of the wrathful side of compassion are hidden from a neophyte because of the misunderstandings that arise.

Sometimes something shocking is a wake up call. Which would you rather have? A swat on the bottom by your mother to keep you from running out in front of that car or getting squished under its wheels. That's an example of wrathful compassion.

A swat on the bottom from my mother teaches me something useful. The sight of a gory Crucifix taught me to stay the hell out of churches. I would say that Buddhists are wise to keep their depictions of the wrathful side of compassion hidden. I also believe that scary images are intended to scare people. Sort of like, if we can't win you over with sweetness and honey, we'll scare you into following our beliefs. Part of the abuse of religion that occurs in every society.

 

[Anguille]

Kissing the crucifix could be percieived as worshipping the cross.

It's honoring what the cross stands for, the sacrifice for humankind so that their transgressions may be forgiven, not the tangible and physical act of crusifixion.

Yes. I agree. It's a symbolic practice of devotion. That doesn't mean it can't be misunderstood. Even some Protestant religions consider that practice idol worship.

Symbols mean different things to different people. No one owns a symbol and can rightfully say their interpretation is the only one permitted.
Regection of idol worship is one thing that makes sense to me.

 

[Sky Dancer]

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

Your innocent childhood reaction to the crucifix is not uncommon. That said, there are depictions of wrathful meditational deities in Tibetan Buddhism that are quite shocking until one has teachings about them and understands what they symbolize. Generally, these depictions of the wrathful side of compassion are hidden from a neophyte because of the misunderstandings that arise.

Sometimes something shocking is a wake up call. Which would you rather have? A swat on the bottom by your mother to keep you from running out in front of that car or getting squished under its wheels. That's an example of wrathful compassion.

A swat on the bottom from my mother teaches me something useful. The sight of a gory Crucifix taught me to stay the hell out of churches. I would say that Buddhists are wise to keep their depictions of the wrathful side of compassion hidden. I also believe that scary images are intended to scare people. Sort of like, if we can't win you over with sweetness and honey, we'll scare you into following our beliefs. Part of the abuse of religion that occurs in every society.

We're certainly familiar with fire and brimstone sermons in our country. It's true that fear of consequences is what allows alot of us to keep our behavior in check.

Your early experience with the crucifix set you out on a different path of questioning. Keep asking uncomfortable questions.

 

[CurveLight]

Regarding the charge of masochism in Christianity it is certanily true that there are some extreme Christian sects self-flagellate and nail themselves to crosses every year. That doesn't mean the basic symbol of the crucifixion is masochistic. It just means some misguided (to me) individuals interpret their spiritual practice that way.

That said, Buddhists are known to do prostrations around Mt Kailash in Tibet. It's a strenuous and painful purification process but the point is to engage body, speech and mind in practice, to be wholly and fully engaged.

It's all about context, IMO.

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

Could you expand on that? I'm not following what you're trying to say here. What negates Jesus' teachings exactly?

The concept of Original Sin attempts to explain why people hurt themselves and each other and why evil exists. Many claim Jesus came to make amends between us and God for OS and that is why they say "Jesus is the only way." That was not Jesus' message or teachings. He was saying everyone is a beautiful child of God regardless of nationality, gender, etc. Jesus came to disabuse the concept of OS and show atonement is within ourselves through relationships with each other and that a Temple-clergy system was at odds with what "God" represents.

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus stated forgiveness from God was conditional upon our forgiveness for each other. People have largely ignored that out of selfishness. What is more appealing to the masses? Work to make amends with each other out of trying to find love for each other and being accountable or......say you "accept Jesus" and that's basically it? The modern concept of Salvation is designed to inculcate people with OS to constantly make them feel guilty about being fallible selfish human beings. Jesus took the opposite position and admitted our faults but did it with a license of freedom in admitting we are all fuck ups in one way or another. By obsessing over Original Sin most people never have to opportunity to actually study Jesus' teachings and many Christians shy away from this dilemma out of being theological paralyzed by the prospect of a complete world ethos makeover.

Buddhism is much much closer to Jesus' teachings than Christianity and it is mind blowing how Mahayana Buddhism has a Trinitarian philosophy very close to Christianity and both schools were formed about the exact same time but thousands of miles apart from each other.

So, you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then? How do you then interpret all of his comments about the only way to God being through Him?

Jesus was as divine about as much as a human can be but by his own words we know he was not omniscient and he never ever said to accept him as our Saviour. If you compare John to the synoptics you can see huge leaps of theological claims easily taken out of context. Jn 14:6 is saying we have to follow Jesus' example. How do you literally "accept" Jesus? He's not a product to be accepted like a free sample cookie. The phrase "accept Jesus" is a euphemism for "accept personal responsibility." Do you see how that falls right in line with the Lord's Prayer in Jesus teaching that we pray our sins are forgiven as we forgive those who sin against us?

His often overlooked victory on the cross is he stood by his own teachings. His followers were extremely devoted and many lusted after a military revolt to restore the house of israel against the roman empire and its client kings that oppressed jews. Jesus could have given the word and avoided the torture but unlike us, he was not a hypocrite.

 

[Anguille]

And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.

For all the ranting and raving in this thread, no one has yet caused me to consider invalid my initial response to the crucifix that I got at my first encounter with one as a child. It still represents an instrument of torture to me and the worship of it repulses me. I am not a squeamish person but the glorification of suffering and torture and people kissing icons of an instrument or torture disgusts me, despite all the claims by various persons in this thread that that is not what it represents. The only person in opposition to me who said something worthwhile was Intense who expanded on why Protestants have rejected crucifixes as idol worship and only use the cross as a Christian symbol. It seems the Protestants might understand to some point, why people like me, who were not indoctrinated with Christianity at an early age, might have a different reaction to that symbol than those who were.

The concept of Original Sin attempts to explain why people hurt themselves and each other and why evil exists. Many claim Jesus came to make amends between us and God for OS and that is why they say "Jesus is the only way." That was not Jesus' message or teachings. He was saying everyone is a beautiful child of God regardless of nationality, gender, etc. Jesus came to disabuse the concept of OS and show atonement is within ourselves through relationships with each other and that a Temple-clergy system was at odds with what "God" represents.

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus stated forgiveness from God was conditional upon our forgiveness for each other. People have largely ignored that out of selfishness. What is more appealing to the masses? Work to make amends with each other out of trying to find love for each other and being accountable or......say you "accept Jesus" and that's basically it? The modern concept of Salvation is designed to inculcate people with OS to constantly make them feel guilty about being fallible selfish human beings. Jesus took the opposite position and admitted our faults but did it with a license of freedom in admitting we are all fuck ups in one way or another. By obsessing over Original Sin most people never have to opportunity to actually study Jesus' teachings and many Christians shy away from this dilemma out of being theological paralyzed by the prospect of a complete world ethos makeover.

Buddhism is much much closer to Jesus' teachings than Christianity and it is mind blowing how Mahayana Buddhism has a Trinitarian philosophy very close to Christianity and both schools were formed about the exact same time but thousands of miles apart from each other.

So, you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus then? How do you then interpret all of his comments about the only way to God being through Him?

Jesus was as divine about as much as a human can be but by his own words we know he was not omniscient and he never ever said to accept him as our Saviour. If you compare John to the synoptics you can see huge leaps of theological claims easily taken out of context. Jn 14:6 is saying we have to follow Jesus' example. How do you literally "accept" Jesus? He's not a product to be accepted like a free sample cookie. The phrase "accept Jesus" is a euphemism for "accept personal responsibility." Do you see how that falls right in line with the Lord's Prayer in Jesus teaching that we pray our sins are forgiven as we forgive those who sin against us?

His often overlooked victory on the cross is he stood by his own teachings. His followers were extremely devoted and many lusted after a military revolt to restore the house of israel against the roman empire and its client kings that oppressed jews. Jesus could have given the word and avoided the torture but unlike us, he was not a hypocrite.

Exactly. According to the story Jesus chose to die rather than to continue the fight. Basically he committed suicide. His choice and his to make. But not a reason to applaud his actions, IMO.

 

[CurveLight]

It's honoring what the cross stands for, the sacrifice for humankind so that their transgressions may be forgiven, not the tangible and physical act of crusifixion.

Yes. I agree. It's a symbolic practice of devotion. That doesn't mean it can't be misunderstood. Even some Protestant religions consider that practice idol worship.

Symbols mean different things to different people. No one owns a symbol and can rightfully say their interpretation is the only one permitted.
Regection of idol worship is one thing that makes sense to me.

If someone said the skull + crossbones symbol represents love, life, and an eternal supply of orgasmic quality chocolate would you respect that claim? Obviously not. Why? It's not based on facts. Of course everyone has the ability to ascribe any meaning to any symbol but only the dishonest pretend it's valid.