anti-christ discussion, from middle p. 3 to end.

[Moksha]

I have plenty of examples around me for that brand, including my own mommy. But again the extreme degree of variation seems to be more of a problem for Christianity rather than a virtue. Are you simply saying some people live Christianity right and others do not? Whose right? The one who hates family for Jesus' sake, or the one who loves one another?

Variation seems to come with humanity. Think Albert Schweitzer and then think Trump. Even atheists and agnostics come in degrees. No need to worry over who is right (except Trump, no one needs a megalomaniacal dictator).

[dastardly stem]

I have plenty of examples around me for that brand, including my own mommy. But again the extreme degree of variation seems to be more of a problem for Christianity rather than a virtue. Are you simply saying some people live Christianity right and others do not? Whose right? The one who hates family for Jesus' sake, or the one who loves one another?

Variation seems to come with humanity. Think Albert Schweitzer and then think Trump. Even atheists and agnostics come in degrees. No need to worry over who is right (except Trump, no one needs a megalomaniacal dictator).

I suppose my persistence has more to do with people not seemingly willing to acknowledge the problem of teachings Christ was said to promote. Put his teachings under close examination and it's no wonder many have promote many atrocities. And that some are prone to ignore his egregious notions and favor something much better then he taught, is far more a credit to humanity it seems to me. Now in truth I do suggest if one is compelled to believe in Jesus that she do so by ignoring the ugly and making. Whole new version
I mean I can hope.

[Moksha]

The New Testament lays out the core philosophy of love in several places and emphasizes that everything thing else is subservient to that core.

There have been atrocities committed in the name of religion and other atrocities committed without any religion. For the atrocities and bad deeds committed in the name of religion, let's hope the founders of those religions would be appalled. If Joseph Smith had seen the bloody aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Incident, let's hope he would puke and vow to never again glorify war.

Prophet Joseph Smith said that “he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, ‘the Alcoran or the Sword.’ So should it be eventually with us, ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword’” (see “History of the Church” 3:167).
https://www.deseret.com/2016/6/16/20590 ... ic-address

Jesus would tell Joseph and Muhammed to lay down their weary swords and take their strength from the Word of God. Buddha would suggest they sit down and have some curry, in moderation. He would observe that the desire for "sword rattling" brings suffering.

[Philo Sofee]

The New Testament lays out the core philosophy of love in several places and emphasizes that everything thing else is subservient to that core.

There have been atrocities committed in the name of religion and other atrocities committed without any religion. For the atrocities and bad deeds committed in the name of religion, let's hope the founders of those religions would be appalled. If Joseph Smith had seen the bloody aftermath of the Mountain Meadows Incident, let's hope he would puke and vow to never again glorify war.

Prophet Joseph Smith said that “he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, ‘the Alcoran or the Sword.’ So should it be eventually with us, ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword’” (see “History of the Church” 3:167).
https://www.deseret.com/2016/6/16/20590 ... ic-address

Jesus would tell Joseph and Muhammed to lay down their weary swords and take their strength from the Word of God. Buddha would suggest they sit down and have some curry, in moderation. He would observe that the desire for "sword rattling" brings suffering.

Would Jesus have told Joseph that? That seems a little "Western" to me. What if he taught more as the Buddha and said all desire leads to suffering, so you quit desiring and let me take care of all this other stuff? Would he have shown something more along the 8 fold path? On the other hand, I have seen studies that show that is what he actually taught! So there is that. But yes I do get your point......

[dastardly stem]

The New Testament lays out the core philosophy of love in several places and emphasizes that everything thing else is subservient to that core.

I don't know that I have a big issue with everything you said, I think I can at least to some degree agree. But this first statement should be challenged, I think. It seems to me the core philosophy of the New Testament is to worship God/Jesus. I grant there's some great allusions to love like when God so loved the world. But there is tons of push back on that--things like where God tells many believers, and god knows what he tells unbelievers, that he never knew them. Rejecting those whom he apparently never would lend an ear to for prayer and pleading. Also, things like the passage that MG has trotted out where Jesus contends if you aren't with me you are against me seems to contradict a core philosophy of love.

Many of the parables have as their message something other than love--like the 10 virgins. If they don't properly prepare for the bridegroom, then they are coldly rejected. So people if they believe have to do things just right, and have to accomplish arbitrary sounding activities in order to be accepted, on New Testament teaching. It's less about love, or less about goodness and more about worshipping properly, it sounds to me.

And again, granted there's effort to give place for love, but in the sum it certainly feels like mixed messaging and the actual core seems more about worship. If you fail to properly worship you aren't really worth much of anything on the New Testament philosophy.

[honorentheos]

There are so many problems that this helps illustrate. The New Testament is a collection of differing stories from a variety of sources that have been edited and manipulated over centuries with varying levels of bias involved. The New Testament isn't biography. It's attempting to persuade the reader. But because it's a combination of so many voices, including many silent voices of editors and redactors, pseudepigraphal contributors, scribal errors, intentional manipulations and a host of other issues, using it to define Jesus is a Rorschach test. Only, it works two ways as the material manipulates as it is also manipulated.

It's one of the good reasons I believe one is best off contextualizing it in history and being critical of it's content without necessarily rejecting it. It's important to recognize why the idea of a Christ was formulated and gained popularity among the Jewish people at the time, and it's valuable to recognize why this concept was popular among people subjugated to the Romans. Likewise, it's good to recognize how this was assimilated into Roman culture and why that occurred. And it's valuable to consider why it has appeal today.

I happen to find the above all good reason to not only disregard the concept of a Christ as superfluous to the modern who feels no need to identify as Christian, but a better reason to be clear in opposing it at it's foundation. We are not fallen. We're just human with all the good and bad that includes. We don't need a savior to find our better angels, but rather should respect and nourish the good we find around and within us. And we should work to figure out what that means for something to be "good" that requires some careful thinking and introspection.

It's not surprising to see people get defensive of Christ in the name of a moral lighthouse they believe exists within Christianity. It could be that people who do this are doing alright defining the nature of Jesus in a way that creates real separation from the origin of the Christ myth. But I don't see it. It still makes Christ the champion of people who think they are chosen or represent the right way to follow God whatever their concept of God may involve. I don't think anyone who does react negatively to this is thinking about what's actually being said here. It's provoking an emotional response to a blow to an identity learned from a Christian background. And that background includes the view the world is fallen, a Christ is necessary to right the wrongs of the universe, these wrongs are defined by the system proposing the Christ being necessary. And they began in a historical setting that involved the Israelites trying to figure out why they were subjugated to other nations when their national mythology told them they were chosen and followers of the one, true god.

By definition, the problem Christianity seeks to solve is that of a fallen world. It's not trying to explain how to find enlightenment. It's not trying to tell you how to be a dutiful citizen. It's teachings are built on the need for a savior to redeem this fallen world and individuals from the human condition. It teaches this is where one finds hope - hope in redemption from one's fallen state. Worthiness gets debated, but the spectrum doesn't include excluding the concept so much as declaring either one must do what one can to become worthy of redemption or, conversely, no one is capable of being worthy on their own so surrender and find redemption.

When the Bible teaches love, the first and greatest commandment is to love god completely, then to love one's neighbor as one loves one's self. Yeah, the New Testament contains teachings about doing good to others as if one were doing good to Jesus. And it says no amount of piety is replacement for turning one's back on one's fellows. Good thoughts? Yeah, maybe. But that isn't Christianity. That's one of the many different voices in the New Testament using the text to influence people just as the stories of Jesus overturning the moneychanger tables in the temple are used by others to excuse being harsh with non-believers. Jesus cursed a fig tree for being leafed out but not having fruit on it because killing a tree served as a symbol for being outwardly pious but not bearing good fruits. What's the lesson there? Hell if I know since killing a tree to make a point about doing good works rather than just being a religious show off doesn't seem "Jesus-like".

Context matters, and the Christ myth when contextualized is clearly antagonistic to what I believe to be a far superior moral approach.

[huckelberry]

The New Testament lays out the core philosophy of love in several places and emphasizes that everything thing else is subservient to that core.

I don't know that I have a big issue with everything you said, I think I can at least to some degree agree. But this first statement should be challenged, I think. It seems to me the core philosophy of the New Testament is to worship God/Jesus. I grant there's some great allusions to love like when God so loved the world. But there is tons of push back on that--things like where God tells many believers, and god knows what he tells unbelievers, that he never knew them.............many of the parables have as their message something other than love--like the 10 virgins. If they don't properly prepare for the bridegroom, then they are coldly rejected. So people if they believe have to do things just right, and have to accomplish arbitrary sounding activities in order to be accepted, on New Testament teaching. It's less about love, or less about goodness and more about worshipping properly, it sounds to me.

dasterdly stem.

I think you may be searching too hard for offense. At least to my reading these passages do not reflect what you see. It is clear that Jesus wants people to put the breaks on selfish indifference or harm to other and increase the responsible care for others. The people he says he does not know are specifically those who do not bother to help others. The same with ten virgins or people invited to the wedding but do not bother to get dressed. This is not about special worship procedure it is about actually putting the idea of love for others into action.

IN the new Testament Jesus appears to get angry with religious people who are more interested in polishing their own holier than thou than in being a help. I think he is right to be angry with those living by greed pride ans selfishness.

[dastardly stem]

dasterdly stem.

I think you may be searching too hard for offense. At least to my reading these passages do not reflect what you see. It is clear that Jesus wants people to put the breaks on selfish indifference or harm to other and increase the responsible care for others. The people he says he does not know are specifically those who do not bother to help others. The same with ten virgins or people invited to the wedding but do not bother to get dressed. This is not about special worship procedure it is about actually putting the idea of love for others into action.

IN the new Testament Jesus appears to get angry with religious people who are more interested in polishing their own holier than thou than in being a help. I think he is right to be angry with those living by greed pride ans selfishness.

Thanks for the response, Huckleberry. I'm not sure I'm following you and to be clear I gave but a couple of examples. If we take for instance Jesus' claim that He or God never knew many believers, I'm curious where you get the idea that he's specifically saying those who do not bother to help others. I would ask, who doesn't help others? Even killers take time to help someone at some point. That sounds like an either/or that doesn't in any way apply to reality. But, really, I'd be curious what you mean by Jesus is saying that he refuses to get to know people specifically for not helping others. Are you saying Jesus hates those who don't help enough? How does he turn off the knowing them to not knowing them? It appears to me you are doing the timeless practice of reading something into it that's not there. I get that and can appreciate that. If one is intent on believing in whatever capacity I'd hope they reject Jesus' ugly teachings, replacing them with something that is more digestible.

In mentioning the 10 virgins I'm also curious what you mean by putting the idea of love for others into action. Where does it suggest that? The whole point of that parable is summed up by suggesting you don't know when Jesus comes--you have to get something, whatever it is, to be ready for it. If you don't get that, you haven't worshipped right. Granted I'm using worship in a way that includes whatever arbitrary thing the god requires of you. On this, again, I would suggest if one is intent on being a Jesus-follower, it is best to discard his bad teaching and replace it with something better.

On your last thought, I do acknowledge Jesus gets upset with other religious-purveyors. Making money while preaching as all church's in this western world do, is considered awful by Jesus...apparently. I'm not sure how that'd apply in today's world.

[huckelberry]

I guess the question is if you and I are closer to one another than one might suppose if we both reject the concept of Christ in substance even if I am doing so in name as well?

I don't think the question is one of being for or against ideals one may associate with Christian belief in it's most gentle forms per se. The question is how does one maintain Christ in the center of this belief pattern when Christ as a concept is a savior in the sense that he destroys to make whole?

It's easy to argue we agree that one shouldn't go around destroying cities in the name of God. It's easy to agree on principle that it's not very enlightened to hope someone else suffers immensely for believing differently, or wanting to see them get a comeuppance of some kind that proves one right. But we probably don't agree that the Christ-myth's reliance on a fallen world to give purpose to a redeemer is cause for hope. I think both belief in the fallen state of the world and Christ as savior go hand-in-hand. To believe in Christ is to accept the world is fallen, that people need redeemed from their fallen state, and with that there is special knowledge that, once gained, will make this clear and help set a person on the correct path. And this means that the majority of humanity spent their entire existence in an unfortunate fallen state. Or, perhaps, you believe they are just fine and it doesn't matter in this life or the next, then what's the point of Christ again? Is it really just a flavor of wisdom tradition? Then it seems we've both jettisoned the Christ concept from our personal worldviews. I don't think you mean that, though.

Honorentheos, My world view is Christcentric. I think triniitarian and see Christ and his actions as connected to the whole human family. I think it is through him the good of all generation may in eternity be shared. We all work together, well except to the extent we betray that possibility. I see no reason to reduce grand possiblity to the trivia of religious purity.

I think the idea of a fallen world is problematic. Well in its simplest form , people are guilty of doing awful things, bury my heart at wounded knee, it is obviously a simple inescapable reality. But you are looking at something different. People can incline to think that a fallen world is incapable of good. I see zero reason to think that way. I also see that false idea as generating genuine evil in the world such as wounded knee and uncountable other examples.

I think the kind of thinking that see the world as evil and we are saved by knowledge of a savior god is Gnosticism, a revolting heresy in my view. True the early syncronistic Christian gnosticism spoke with peculiar words, names, and complicated levels and was suppressed by identifying those tells. But the basic inclination (special knowledge making escape from the corrupt world) did not go away. It came instead to speak with more orthodox phrases.

Christian life blood is love of neighbor, giving mercy and building peace. These connect us together with Christ and connect us to his human courage to live in faith in what he knew as hope and substance of a better world and his willingness to suffer for that faith and hope. He is human with us. This lifeblood also connects us to Christ as God with us and within us which can hope for life and growth now and beyond death.

[huckelberry]

Thanks for the response, Huckleberry. I'm not sure I'm following you and to be clear I gave but a couple of examples. If we take for instance Jesus' claim that He or God never knew many believers, I'm curious where you get the idea that he's specifically saying those who do not bother to help others. I would ask, who doesn't help others? Even killers take time to help someone at some point. That sounds like an either/or that doesn't in any way apply to reality. But, really, I'd be curious what you mean by Jesus is saying that he refuses to get to know people specifically for not helping others. Are you saying Jesus hates those who don't help enough? How does he turn off the knowing them to not knowing them? It appears to me you are doing the timeless practice of reading something into it that's not there. I get that and can appreciate that. If one is intent on believing in whatever capacity I'd hope they reject Jesus' ugly teachings, replacing them with something that is more digestible.

Dastardly stem, I suspect that the phrase , "I never knew you" is a figure of speech referring to a lack of connection of an important type. You have clearly identified reasons that it does not make any sense in a strict literal sense.

You refer to Matthew 25 . verse 41 clarifies, Depart from me you accursed for I was hungry and you gave me no food, naked and you did not cloth me........as you did it not to one of the least of these you did it not to me.

It is true that the 10 virgins story does not specify what they lacked beyond concern for the situation. You will have to use your head to interpret.