Question to Non-Christians

[Truely Free]

To anyone who would not describe themselves as an Orthodox, Bible believing, Christian: what is one thing you would like specifically Christians, but in general people who don't share your particular belief system or philosophy to understand about you.

[Nickman]

That I never had any particular sins that I wanted to just do so that I gave up my faith.

But see, that's why you were excused from Christianity by Jesus himself.

Jesus said, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

See. Christianity is only for those who are sick Nickman.

Jesus knew that you weren't sick so he helped you find your way out of the Christian hospital and released you into the world where your healthy spirit can flourish and be a testament to the glory of God. Even through atheism.

God doesn't care about religion. All God cares about is healthy spirits, and your spirit shines forth the light of God, even as you support an atheistic view of reality.

Your righteousness outshines any religion, and everyone can see your righteous shining like the midday sun.

And that's all that's truly important in the eyes of the real living God.

Hallelujah brother! What a testament to God's righteousness!

I appreciate your view but I do disagree. Though your view seems to be tons better than that of christianity and more tolerant and loving, I would have to say that I am not shining my "righteousness" or being an advocate for god unaware. I don't see any reason for a god in my life, nor do I care what any god out there thinks of me. I am who I am, I do what I want.

[Truely Free]

Divine Insight,
Hey, I have to admit, I'm having a hard time getting a grip on what your beliefs are exactly, especially on how you see differing beliefs. I was thinking more relativist, but I'm not so sure now. I know it's a little off topic, but the thread already is (as to be expected, not everyone wants to open themselves up to this question ) In a previous post you seem to quote Jesus Christ as authoritative

Jesus said, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

What exactly is your o[pinion concerning Christ? I don't want to debate. I think it'd be very unfair to ask you to honestly open up and than try to argue that. I'm just trying to understand you more.

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight,
Hey, I have to admit, I'm having a hard time getting a grip on what your beliefs are exactly, especially on how you see differing beliefs. I was thinking more relativist, but I'm not so sure now. I know it's a little off topic, but the thread already is (as to be expected, not everyone wants to open themselves up to this question ) In a previous post you seem to quote Jesus Christ as authoritative

Jesus said, "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

What exactly is your o[pinion concerning Christ? I don't want to debate. I think it'd be very unfair to ask you to honestly open up and than try to argue that. I'm just trying to understand you more.

My views are very difficult for most Christians to understand, and the reason is quite simple actually. To begin with, like the Jews, I do not accept that Jesus was "The Christ". Because of this, there is no reason for me to hold the New Testament hearsay rumors of Jesus up as infallible verbatim quotes of Jesus.

Christians, on the other hand, do require in a very real sense that it's "all or nothing". In other words, either the New Testament scriptures are the preserved and protected infallible verbatim words of Jesus, or they are totally worthless.

Of course, all "Christians" do not take that view. However, the ones who don't take that view are necessarily suggesting that they accept that there are errors and undependable quotes or bad translations etc., in these scriptures. IMHO, this view renders them all undependable. After all, if a person acknowledges that these scriptures aren't perfectly preserved infallible truth, then they are faced with the impossible problem of having to decide which parts are meaningful and which parts aren't.

C. S. Lewis was a famous Christian who often said, "Either Jesus was God, or he was a lunatic". But the problem is that C. S. Lewis was indeed assuming that every quote attributed to Jesus in the New Testament must be taken as perfectly preserved verbatim perfection. In other words, C. S. Lewis was not allowing for the possiblity that maybe not everything that was placed in the mouth of Jesus by the authors of the New Testament actually came out of the mouth of Jesus precisely as quoted.

Now let me start at the beginning again, and give a broader overview of my position:

~~~~~

I studied the Old Testament and found it to be totally unbelievable in terms of having come from a supposedly all-wise, all-perfect, benevolent supreme being.

I won't go into the any of the reasons or details for my conclusions here, but it's important to understand that after having read the Old Testament I have come away totally convinced that it doesn't represent any supreme God. It is my conclusion that the fables of the Old Testament have no more merit than the fables of Greek Mythology. In fact, I hold that it appears to have actually copied many concepts from Greek Mythology including the idea that a God would somehow be appeased by burnt offerings and blood sacrifices.

So I've concluded that the Old Testament has no merit.

This realization forces me to view the New Testament rumors of Jesus as necessarily being false in their ultimate conclusions and claims. But far more importantly, it also enlightens me to the fact that there is absolutely no reason to expect that these rumors have been preserved as infallible verbatim quotes of Jesus (assuming Jesus even existed at all)

Christians are constantly saying, "Jesus said this, Jesus said that, etc". But in truth they have no clue what Jesus might have actually said, assuming he ever even existed. What they really should be saying is that "Mark said that Jesus said, or Matthew said that Jesus said, or Luke said that Jesus said, or John said that Jesus said,...."

Because in truth not a single solitary word in the entire New Testament was written by Jesus himself. It's entirely hearsay rumors about Jesus. And that is just the truth of the situation confessed by the authors of the New Testament themselves.

~~~~

I had already concluded that the God of the Old Testament cannot possibly be true. So I needed to ask "Who was Jesus then?". There seems to be two possible answers to this question:

1. He's a totally fabricated fictional character.
2. He's the result of the actual life of some man who sparked these rumors.

There are reasons that I feel that the first of these possibilities is highly unlikely. Therefore I conclude that the life and times of some real person gave rise to these hearsay rumors.

In short I believe that "Jesus" actually existed. However, I must put "Jesus" in quotes here, because the real "Jesus" would not be a verbatim copy of the rumors that he may have sparked. So the real "Jesus" may not have said, or done, many of the things that these rumors claim. I hold also, that Jesus could not possible have said, or supported everything that is said about him in the New Testament because there are actually many contradictions in those stories that cannot possible be simultaneously true.

So in other words, I'm totally convinced that there are indeed errors, exaggerations, or even outright lies about Jesus contained in the New Testament.

I think when we read these rumors there are some things that appear to be fairly consistent concerning some of the things that Jesus may have done. This is simply because they are retold over and over again, and this give those parts of the rumors some merit.

For example. It's clear that Jesus did not think much of the Jewish Pharisees and he obviously sat around ranting publicly about how hypocritical they are. And this also clearly upset the Pharisees. So that part probably is true.

There are also many places where he appears to be claiming that he and God are one. So he probably did hold that philosophical perspective.

He also taught moral values and behaviors that are totally opposite to those taught in the Old Testament. That much is also crystal clear.

He also probably was crucified publicly in a highly traumatic event, and that explains precisely what actually sparked these superstitious rumors that he really was "God" and claims that he actually rose from dead, etc.

I can easily see that happening by the people who loved him and couldn't handle the fact that he had been crucified, so they made him into an immoral God by proclaiming that he was "The Christ", which was a myth that was clearly in the air in that culture at this time. People were actually waiting for their messiah to come at that particular point in history. So this was a common myth waiting to fulfill itself.

~~~~

In my early studies of religion I could not solve this dilemma. I could not explain why any person would take the position that Jesus seemed to be taking in these Gospel rumors. Like C. S. Lewis suggested the only conclusion appears to be that he would either have had to have actually been "The Christ", or he would have had to have been some sort of crazed lunatic. Why would he have claimed to be one with the father, for example?

Well, I ended up studying other world religions, and one of them was Buddhism. I took a full college course on the history of Buddhism. I was in awe. Buddhism is far more complex and diverse than I had ever imagined. But far more importantly, as Buddhism evolved many different forms of Buddhism arose. And one in particular that arose is called "Mahayana Buddhism". Mahayana means, "The Great Vehicle". And the idea behind it is that the details of religion and how people view God are not what's important. What's important is how they behave.

So Mahayana Buddhism wasn't about pushing "religion". Mahayana Buddhism was about getting people to understand how to live good lives. Thus taking them to the path of Nirvana (or Heaven if you prefer).

Mahayana Buddhism also was very big on a concept called the "Bodhisattva". A Bodhisattva is simply a spiritually enlightened person who has vowed to dedicate his life to helping others become spiritually enlightened thus ensuring their journey to Nirvana, or Heaven.

The more I learned about Mahayana Buddhism the more I thought about Jesus. I couldn't help but think, "Man, this Mahayana Buddhism sounds just like Jesus".

Then I learned that Mahayana Buddhism was the single most successful form of Buddhism helping to bring many Buddhists together under the "Great Vehicle" of Mahayana Buddhism. And lo and behold this form of Buddhism reached it's peak of popularity at precisely the time when Jesus would have lived.

Couple this with the fact that many early Jews in Jesus day were actually quite "mystical" in their beliefs, and it's easy to see Jesus as a Jew embracing the spiritual philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism and even trying to work that in with the Torah or Old Testament of his own culture's religion.

After all, Mahayana Buddhism wasn't about "religion". So it wouldn't have been like Judaism versus Mahayana Buddhism as if they are totally opposing religions. Jesus could see the "TRUTH" in both.

It's also clear, even by the New Testament Gospels that Jesus did not agree with all of the teachings in the Torah or Old Testament.

Jesus renounced the judging of others and taught people not to cast the first stone at sinners. That clearly shows that Jesus didn't take Deuteronomy or Leviticus too seriously. He's basically rejecting the teachings of those books of the Old Testament and replacing them with far higher moral values. The non-violence and non-judging taught by Mahayana Buddhism.

Jesus renounced the seeking of revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and replaced that with a concept of forgiveness, (metaphorically turn the other cheek). Again he's rejecting the teachings of the Old Testament and replacing them with the non-judgmental moral values of Mahayana Buddhism.

Here what the New Testament has Jesus saying:

Mattthew 5-38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

He's directly rejecting the teachings of the Old Testament and replacing them with the non-violent morals of Mahayana Buddhism.

Here he does it again:

Matthew 5:43-44 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

He's directly rejecting the teaching attributed to the God of Abraham via the Old Testament and replacing them with the higher non-violent morals of Mahayana Buddhism.

In all of these rumors where does Jesus teach anyone that they must worship the Torah or Old Testament as the unquestioned verbatim "Word of God"?

He doesn't teach that even in these hearsay rumors.

Jesus wasn't asking anyone to believe in the God of Abraham verbatim.

On the contrary, he was himself rejecting those teaching via the very things that he was teachings. He basically taught against the teachings attributed to the God of Abraham.

I'm sure that Jesus believed in "God". He was clearly a very spiritual man. He no doubt also believed in life after death and a possible heaven or nirvana. But he was in no way preaching that people need to believe in the Old Testament as the verbatim "Work of God".

He no doubt took the panentheistic or mystical view of God quite seriously. He taught "I and the Father are one" with complete confidence and conviction. But any Mahayana Buddhist would indeed do that because that's an integral part of the mystical philosophy.

In Buddhism they have a saying, "Tat T'vam Asi" which means, "You are that", or from an experiential point of view, "I am that I am"

Many Jews were actually quite mystical in their beliefs in this way.

Moreover when Jesus is accused of blaspheme for having said that he and the Father are one, what was his defense?

Did he deny it? No.

Did he stand by it in the sense of claiming to be "The only begotten son of God"? No.

On the contrary, he did precisely what a Mahayana Buddhist would do,...

He pointed to the Jewish Torah (or Old Testament) and said, "Is it not written in your law, I have said ye are gods"?

In other words, he's own defense for proclaiming that he and the Father are one, is to point out that any human can say this because we are all a facet of God or the Holy Spirit.

~~~~~

So I'm thoroughly convinced that Jesus was indeed a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. He took on disciples just as a Bodhisattva would do, and he even charged them with being Bodhisattvas as well. He asked them to then go out and dedicate their lives to passing on the enlightenment that he gave to them.

Unfortunately it didn't work they way it was supposed to work. Instead of his disciples understanding what he was actually saying, they instead created superstitious myths that he was "The Christ".

In fact, Jesus being a mere mortal man like the rest of us, may himself even got caught up in the rumors of "The Christ". After all those rumors were in the air at that time, and it may indeed have been suggested to him by his very own disciples that they are prepared to believe that he is "The Christ".

In fact, the Gospel rumors bear this out.

People too, even had different ideas of what "The Christ" even meant back then. Jesus, believing that he was indeed spirituality enlightened (i.e. that he had been born again in spirit through Mahayana Buddhism) may have even been convinced that he had indeed been "anointed by God" to become a Bodhisattva.

I mean, hey, religious zealots are religious zealots no matter when they might live in history. Clearly Jesus himself would have needed to be obsessed with the concept of God and spirituality to have dedicated his life to becoming a Bodhisattva. That can easily go to a person's head. Especially if his own disciples are prepared to believe that he's something special.

Precisely what the details are of these events no one will ever know.

All I can tell you is that I'm convinced that the Old Testament has no more merit than Greek Mythology. Jesus himself clearly didn't even agree with the teachings of the Old Testament either even according to these gospel rumors. And the idea that Jesus was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism actually explains everything.

There are no mysteries left to explain once this scenario is accepted.

Jesus was a mortal man. He was trying to teach the higher moral values of Mahayana Buddhism to his bother Jews, and it backfired to become what we today call "Christianity".

That's my view.

And this is why I'm free to accept whichever parts of the New Testament I choose to accept, and reject parts that I feel are nothing more than exaggerated superstitious rumors.

I have no need to support the entire New Testament as the infallible verbatim works of Jesus. On the contrary, I can show where there are blatant contradictions in these rumors that can't be simultaneous true. So the errors in these rumors are quite apparent to me.

Hope this helps you to better understand my views on who Jesus might have been historically speaking.

Like the Jews, I do not accept that Jesus was "The Christ" or "The Messiah" or the "Only Begotten Son of God".

I reject all of those as being nothing more than superstitious rumors.

But I do accept that he existed and was trying to teach people higher moral values.

I also believe that he probably was horrible crucified. So even if it could be proven that some guy was nailed to a cross as the gospel rumors claim, that wouldn't change my views one iota. I would still be convinced that my conclusions are far more likely than the idea that some supposedly benevolent God had planed to have his only begotten innocent son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of mankind.

To me that's simply not acceptable behavior for a supposedly all-wise all-powerful and benevolent God to be involved with.

I just can't see that. So the scenario I proposed above makes far more sense to me.

Jesus as a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva is respectable, IMHO.

Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of a sick demented God, is not.

That's my position on that.

[Divine Insight]

I appreciate your view but I do disagree. Though your view seems to be tons better than that of christianity and more tolerant and loving, I would have to say that I am not shining my "righteousness" or being an advocate for god unaware. I don't see any reason for a god in my life, nor do I care what any god out there thinks of me. I am who I am, I do what I want.

Well, it was just a metaphorical "Hallelujah" based on a metaphorical Jesus releasing you from a metaphorical Christian insane asylum.

I think it's good that you are who you are.

That's who we should all be.

Well, we shouldn't all be the who that is you, but instead we should be the thee that is we.

But yes, being true to thy self is always a good thing.

[Nilloc James]

I dont know if I can limit myself two just one (I love to talk so very much) so here is a brief list:
1. Im not nonreligious 'because I hate god'; but because Im intereated in truth wherever it leads
2. I recognize what religion has done good and bad - however neither of these speak to its factualness.
3. I feel love hate and the whole spectrum of human emotions without faith - nonbelievers are human
4. I see more beauty in chains of carbon than religous stories, more wonder in the human mind than a conjectured creator and more sacredness in life than in any holy text.

[Divine Insight]

4. I see more beauty in chains of carbon than religous stories, more wonder in the human mind than a conjectured creator and more sacredness in life than in any holy text.

That's the way I feel too.

The only true "Holy Bible" that we actually have is the universe itself.

Scientists are really the only people who actually read the "Word of God" that is written in the stars.

Nothing holds more truth than the universe itself.

As ironic as it may seem secular scientists who are said to be "atheists" actually honor, respect, and worship (i.e. revere) "God" far more than any religious person can even begin to comprehend.

They just don't understand that to revere the "creation" is to revere the "creator" regardless of what the creator may be (i.e. sentient or not).

Religions that create and worship egotistical idol images of God made in the image of man are actually the ones who are disgracing God.

And the fact that they have turned God into a patriarchal male-chauvinistic jealous God who supposedly hates anyone who doesn't love him, and attempts to solve all his problems using violent means and threats of violent wrath, speaks volumes about what kind of a graven image they have indeed created.

Einstein's God is a far better God. Although even Einstein complained that God throws dice. But like Niels Bohr said, "Don't be telling God what to do".

This universe is indeed a toss of the dice. So if there is a creator that creator is indeed a crap-shooting God.

Much to Einstein's dismay.

[dyanaprajna2011]

Something that I would want Christians to understand about me? I don't think I can limit it to just one, so here's a few:

1. I spent nearly 30 years of my life as a Christian, and actually believed the things I was being taught. The whole "you rejected Christianity, so you must not have really believed" line gets old.
2. While I had some bad experiences with people in various churches I went to, I never attributed this to god or the religion. So I didn't reject Christianity because of emotional trauma.
3. I didn't reject Christianity because I wanted to be immoral. If that was the case, I wouldn't have converted to another religion, Buddhism, that has just as high, if not higher, moral standards.
4. My rejection of Christianity was not on a whim, it was thought out, and based on logical reasoning that took years to complete.

My rejection of Christianity was not based on emotional trauma or some desire to be immoral. It was well thought out and reasoned, and based on a desire for something more rational. I found that in Buddhism. Quite simply, Christianity didn't offer anything I needed, I found that somewhere else.

[Nickman]

I appreciate your view but I do disagree. Though your view seems to be tons better than that of christianity and more tolerant and loving, I would have to say that I am not shining my "righteousness" or being an advocate for god unaware. I don't see any reason for a god in my life, nor do I care what any god out there thinks of me. I am who I am, I do what I want.

Well, it was just a metaphorical "Hallelujah" based on a metaphorical Jesus releasing you from a metaphorical Christian insane asylum.

I think it's good that you are who you are.

That's who we should all be.

Well, we shouldn't all be the who that is you, but instead we should be the thee that is we.

But yes, being true to thy self is always a good thing.

I am surprised I missed this post. Sorry for the late entry. It sounds like you went off on a Dr. Seuss pun there.

[Ionian_Tradition]

To anyone who would not describe themselves as an Orthodox, Bible believing, Christian: what is one thing you would like specifically Christians, but in general people who don't share your particular belief system or philosophy to understand about you.

That when I scrutinize your beliefs I do so with a genuine curiosity. My intentions are never malicious. Too many devout believers seem to confuse skeptical inquiry with an assault on their beliefs and indeed their character. I don't scrutinize you because you believe, I do so because I wish to learn what & why you believe.

[Nickman]

To anyone who would not describe themselves as an Orthodox, Bible believing, Christian: what is one thing you would like specifically Christians, but in general people who don't share your particular belief system or philosophy to understand about you.

That I don't care what you believe and to keep it to yourself, unless we are on the Debating Christianity & Religion forum. Below is the link if you havent heard of it before.

http://debatingchristianity.com