Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
You're so damn dishonest I don't give a fuck what you think. You're the kind of sick fuck that would say rape is a compliment because the rapist was so attracted to his victim he risked his freedom for sex. You know you are being dishonest you just don't care so long as you can whine.
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.
You're so damn dishonest I don't give a fuck what you think. You're the kind of sick fuck that would say rape is a compliment because the rapist was so attracted to his victim he risked his freedom for sex. You know you are being dishonest you just don't care so long as you can whine.
She is either completely ignorant of the story of Jesus Christ, or incapable of understanding the story in the right context, or is being willfully obtuse, or is trolling. Take your pick.
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.And that's it exactly. Many like to take it out of context as displayed here in this thread.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure whether you believe Jesus to be the son of God then? Sent by God?
So, what about John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
And for reference John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
So, you interpret that as just following his example then, not neccessarily believing that he was the son of God sent to save those who believed in Him? Say a person doesn't believe that he was the son of God, or doesn't even necessarily believe in God, but follows Jesus' example (and not because they even know of Jesus), do you believe they will be saved then?
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.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--
Is it possible for you to acknowledge there are teachings about the Crucifixation that you don't understand and just leave it at that? I'm not a Christian either. I don't interpret Jesus dying on the cross as suicide. I have my own strange way of coming to terms with the Crucifixion from a Buddhist perspective.
In a Buddhist way, I understand the Crucifixion as a profound purification practice offered by Jesus for all people. Jesus endured the suffering of the Crucifixion and opened his heart thinking only of others. In that, he gives a worthy example to follow. For some of us teachings on suffering open our hearts. At least, it worked that way for me in Buddhism.
It's possible to skip the whole Crucifixion aspect entirely and concentrate on another aspect of Jesus' life. There is great beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and on the two great commandments--to love God with ones whole heart and to love ones neighbor as oneself.
Prostestants don't emphasize the Crucifixion, they look at other parts of Jesus life.
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.
Anguille--
Is it possible for you to acknowledge there are teachings about the Crucifixation that you don't understand and just leave it at that? I'm not a Christian either. I don't interpret Jesus dying on the cross as suicide. I have my own strange way of coming to terms with the Crucifixion from a Buddhist perspective.
In a Buddhist way, I understand the Crucifixion as a profound purification practice offered by Jesus for all people. Jesus endured the suffering of the Crucifixion and opened his heart thinking only of others. In that, he gives a worthy example to follow. For some of us teachings on suffering open our hearts. At least, it worked that way for me in Buddhism.
It's possible to skip the whole Crucifixion aspect entirely and concentrate on another aspect of Jesus' life. There is great beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and on the two great commandments--to love God with ones whole heart and to love ones neighbor as oneself.
Prostestants don't emphasize the Crucifixion, they look at other parts of Jesus life.
Ironically your view of the crucifixion is more in line with the concept of Original Sin. The crucifixion itself was not a purification. His actions and life needed no purification. The message he sent from the cross is even the strongest military superpowers in the world, with all of their power, weapons, brutalities, and murders, cannot conquer and kill Life. Given the military history of the Israelites from the Old Testament, you can see how Christianity departed from the OT by fighting against injustice without violence on people.
There has been way too much theological creedence ascribed to the cross when the real theology of Jesus is found in his actions. People following his example of non-violent resistance is the only reason we know of him today.
Anguille--
Is it possible for you to acknowledge there are teachings about the Crucifixation that you don't understand and just leave it at that? I'm not a Christian either. I don't interpret Jesus dying on the cross as suicide. I have my own strange way of coming to terms with the Crucifixion from a Buddhist perspective.
In a Buddhist way, I understand the Crucifixion as a profound purification practice offered by Jesus for all people. Jesus endured the suffering of the Crucifixion and opened his heart thinking only of others. In that, he gives a worthy example to follow. For some of us teachings on suffering open our hearts. At least, it worked that way for me in Buddhism.
It's possible to skip the whole Crucifixion aspect entirely and concentrate on another aspect of Jesus' life. There is great beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and on the two great commandments--to love God with ones whole heart and to love ones neighbor as oneself.
Prostestants don't emphasize the Crucifixion, they look at other parts of Jesus life.
Ironically your view of the crucifixion is more in line with the concept of Original Sin. The crucifixion itself was not a purification. His actions and life needed no purification. The message he sent from the cross is even the strongest military superpowers in the world, with all of their power, weapons, brutalities, and murders, cannot conquer and kill Life. Given the military history of the Israelites from the Old Testament, you can see how Christianity departed from the OT by fighting against injustice without violence on people.
There has been way too much theological creedence ascribed to the cross when the real theology of Jesus is found in his actions. People following his example of non-violent resistance is the only reason we know of him today.
So we can know Christ through the actions of Martin Luther King?
John is a tricky gospel and much of it is allegory and employs metaphors as a way of sending the message. Jesus is the son of God as in a child of God as are all humans. Have you ever noticed how often Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man? That means "the human one." John 3:16 is not ascribing a special status to Jesus as eternally unique from all people. It is acknowledging that at that time Jesus had a unique existence in communicating between human existence and what lays beyond.
If someone follows Jesus' example of course they are saved. What crime did Jesus commit that prevented his salvation? If you answer "none" then someone who followed his example would not be guilty of a crime preventing salvation either. God does not want us to live as guilt laden creations wallowing in the sewers of our own tears drowning in the despair of never knowing the purpose of our existence and the value of our lives. That is the philosophy Jesus fought against.
How do you reconcile the claim forgiveness is found in "accepting Jesus" with Jesus teaching us forgiveness from God is found in our forgiveness of others?
I thought the whole point of Jesus was that he was human and divine and he came to teach how to be one with God?
I thought the whole point of Jesus was that he was human and divine and he came to teach how to be one with God?
Actually, his purpose was to provide those that believe in him a way to salvation. Since the Old Testament condemns "man" based on the original sin, God sent "his son" to provide "man" with that way to be with God. His crucifixion was taking on mankind's sins and after his death on the cross, he went into hell for man, but was able to rise up. Thus, in a nutshell, giving "man" salvation to be eternally with God.
ed...I saw your add....and Christ's teachings are through love and compassion and him giving his life on the cross was the ultimate example of love by taking on mankind's sins.
From the way I know it anyway.
I thought the whole point of Jesus was that he was human and divine and he came to teach how to be one with God?
Actually, his purpose was to provide those that believe in him a way to salvation. Since the Old Testament condemns "man" based on the original sin, God sent "his son" to provide "man" with that way to be with God. His crucifixion was taking on mankind's sins and after his death on the cross, he went into hell for man, but was able to rise up. Thus, in a nutshell, giving "man" salvation to be eternally with God.
ed...I saw your add....and Christ's teachings are through love and compassion and him giving his life on the cross was the ultimate example of love by taking on mankind's sins.
From the way I know it anyway.
Thanks. That clarifies the difference for me between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist, Christian and non-christian. We Buddhists don't have a redeemer. Shakamuni Buddha pointed out the path to enlightenment but he didn't purify our karma. We have to do that ourselves.
That said there are some similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. We each have an example and teachings to follow, prayers, contemplation and meditation.
Actually, his purpose was to provide those that believe in him a way to salvation. Since the Old Testament condemns "man" based on the original sin, God sent "his son" to provide "man" with that way to be with God. His crucifixion was taking on mankind's sins and after his death on the cross, he went into hell for man, but was able to rise up. Thus, in a nutshell, giving "man" salvation to be eternally with God.
ed...I saw your add....and Christ's teachings are through love and compassion and him giving his life on the cross was the ultimate example of love by taking on mankind's sins.
From the way I know it anyway.
Thanks. That clarifies the difference for me between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist, Christian and non-christian. We Buddhists don't have a redeemer. Shakamuni Buddha pointed out the path to enlightenment but he didn't purify our karma. We have to do that ourselves.
That said there are some similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. We each have an example and teachings to follow, prayers, contemplation and meditation.
And what I have bolded is the differences in some "Christian" religions as well. Some believe that penance can come through rituals while others believe that forgiveness of sin can ONLY come through Christ. I do get concerned when people refer to most denominations as "christian".
Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian? Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so? And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated. Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way? How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?
Ok. I see what you mean. It's true that all Christians get lumped together with the least skillful among you--David Koresh case in point. It's the same with Islamic radicals who take up terrorism. All Muslims--including the millions of peace loving ones get lumped together with terrorists.Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian? Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so? And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated. Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way? How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?
(I'm going to preface my response by saying that this is what I have been taught and believe)
My concern is that ALL christians are viewed upon based on some radicals that are not true to Christ's teachings, thus closing their minds. Example, Waco and David Curesh (sp?)
It's not that christians "allow" for differences. Each domination has some nuances that differentiate themselves. Some of those nuances are more pronounced than others. And how I believe, it's not my place to honor or respect other religions as I was taught not to judge others. My place is, well, to do what I'm doing right now and that is to honestly answer a query as best I know how, but in a manner that is not disrespectful.
Ok. I see what you mean. It's true that all Christians get lumped together with the least skillful among you--David Koresh case in point. It's the same with Islamic radicals who take up terrorism. All Muslims--including the millions of peace loving ones get lumped together with terrorists.Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian? Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so? And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated. Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way? How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?
(I'm going to preface my response by saying that this is what I have been taught and believe)
My concern is that ALL christians are viewed upon based on some radicals that are not true to Christ's teachings, thus closing their minds. Example, Waco and David Curesh (sp?)
It's not that christians "allow" for differences. Each domination has some nuances that differentiate themselves. Some of those nuances are more pronounced than others. And how I believe, it's not my place to honor or respect other religions as I was taught not to judge others. My place is, well, to do what I'm doing right now and that is to honestly answer a query as best I know how, but in a manner that is not disrespectful.
It just shows the frustration we have with being helpless in the face of suffering and wanting someone to blame for the wrongs committed.
Why are you concerned that people refer to most denominations as Christian? Aren't they Christian if they call themselves so? And this is where some of us non-christians get confused and sometimes frustrated. Do you allow for differences among you or is one way the right way? How do you honor and respect each other when your practices are so different?
(I'm going to preface my response by saying that this is what I have been taught and believe)
My concern is that ALL christians are viewed upon based on some radicals that are not true to Christ's teachings, thus closing their minds. Example, Waco and David Curesh (sp?)
It's not that christians "allow" for differences. Each domination has some nuances that differentiate themselves. Some of those nuances are more pronounced than others. And how I believe, it's not my place to honor or respect other religions as I was taught not to judge others. My place is, well, to do what I'm doing right now and that is to honestly answer a query as best I know how, but in a manner that is not disrespectful.
As for responsibility, we are each responsible for our own salvation through acceptance of Christ.
