Thread: Jesus the biggest lie ever?

Originally posted by Kreator8
I personaly don't believe in Jesus. I have my doubts. I have read alot of stuff off the bible and still find it hard to believe in Jesus. I think that the only reason why people did believe in him back then, if he did really exist, is because people back then were easier to fool. He migh have existed but I don't believe he was sent by God. If some how it were to be proven that Jesus wasn't a decendent of God, what would you do? wouldn't that be the biggest lie ever? Would you be dissapointed? I personaly wouldn't. I would just continue my life. Please post you thoughts and feelings.

I would be happy , cos it would mean i wasnt going to burn in hell for eternity according to Christianity(few) .

Originally posted by Kreator8
I personaly don't believe in Jesus. I have my doubts. I have read alot of stuff off the bible and still find it hard to believe in Jesus. I think that the only reason why people did believe in him back then, if he did really exist, is because people back then were easier to fool. He migh have existed but I don't believe he was sent by God. If some how it were to be proven that Jesus wasn't a decendent of God, what would you do? wouldn't that be the biggest lie ever? Would you be dissapointed? I personaly wouldn't. I would just continue my life. Please post you thoughts and feelings.

Your premise is that people were stupider back then. Did they elect George Bush King of the World? Are they burning down the World over some silly cartoons? Look at your own slim essay, and ask whether it demonstrates any solid improvement on the works of the Ancient Civilizations. But we can refer to the Biblical Narrative and find that apparently the people back then were used to a standard of literature and philosophy that far exceeds the efforts you have put forth. Elements from the Sermon of the Mount, some several of the Parable Allagories have become moral treasures that have been incorporated into the commentaries of all of the World's Higher Religions. Jesus is often quoted by Zoroastrians, Mahayana Buddhists, Hindus, Yogin.... being disowned only by the Jews, ironically enough. You say that people were 'fooled' but it rather seems they have been instructed and improved by this Christly influence. But you dismiss all that as gullibility.

It is indeed difficult to believe how you can suppose any generation less sophisticated then yourself. What you would deserve is a World to live in that would be absent of any of the Moral Influences that you despise. You want Barbarism. I hope you get plenty.

Leo, you have the shortest, most selective memory of anyone I've ever internet-met. Well, except maybe the Rev.

Before moses was, Jesus is. Before Jesus was. I am. He has christ consiousness. You can't prove it wrong. You don't remember living in those times. You have no authority to say what happened or who existed. You use historical data and facts and physical evidence as a reference according to reliability. Anything else you get from the oneness princible and that will allow you to know.

Before moses was, Jesus is. Before Jesus was. I am. He has christ consiousness.[/b]

And you know this how?

You can't prove it wrong.[/b]

I am your true bioligical father...you can't prove me wrong, cuz you weren't there when I planted my seed in your mother.

You have no authority to say what happened or who existed.[/b]

He has just as much authority as you do.

You use historical data and facts and physical evidence as a reference according to reliability. Anything else you get from the oneness princible and that will allow you to know.[/b]

The oneness principle is just as inadequate as any other dogma.

I think it indeed is the biggest lie.

However, is it a lie if the people that preach the lie believe the lie themselves. ' Lie' is a rather relative word. I rather refer to it as ' bullshit' .

Originally posted by InTheMoment

Before moses was, Jesus is. Before Jesus was. I am. He has christ consiousness.

And you know this how?

You can't prove it wrong.[/b]

I am your true bioligical father...you can't prove me wrong, cuz you weren't there when I planted my seed in your mother.

You have no authority to say what happened or who existed.[/b]

He has just as much authority as you do.

You use historical data and facts and physical evidence as a reference according to reliability. Anything else you get from the oneness princible and that will allow you to know.[/b]

The oneness principle is just as inadequate as any other dogma.[/b]

Thank you - my thoughts exactly (except I didn't plant a seed in his mother - LOL).

Originally posted by burns91


Thank you - my thoughts exactly (except I didn't plant a seed in his mother - LOL).

Now that would be hot! (my Paris Hilton impersonation is lacking) ~

Well, there is enough evidence to assume that the historical figure Jesus existed. People in ancient times who were not Christian and did not have anything to gain from writing about Jesus confirmed there was some dude from Nazaret stirring up a whole bunch of trouble. Whether he was actually the son of God, well, nobody knows. There's no proof, only speculation. And unfortunately, that probably is all it will ever be.

Do you people tire? Seriously.

Good debate can keep me up all night. The same debate can put me to sleep!
All you are doing is changing the wording.
Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth and Around and around. Back and forth.

The merry-go-round was always my favorite ride at the park. ~

i was raised a fundamentalist christian, and once believed the bible to be the inerrant word of god (or at least wanted to, and pretended).

nobody can say anything for sure. all history is just words on paper, heresay. he might not even have existed historically..

however, i wouldn't call jesus a 'lie'. the way i look at it, the jesus myth (historical or not) is one of the more potent symbols for cosmic consiousness humanity has cooked up. as an agnostic atheist i still read the gospel of john for inspiration. often while on mushrooms i experience 'christ consciousness'.

it is the 'spirit' of christ that is real or not. as leo said, many religions have accepted jesus as one of the great spiritual teachers, without buying into alot of the dogma. all spiritual teachers ultimately preach the same message:

unconditional love, and cosmic consiousness. from krishna, to buddha, to jesus, etc.

i look upon the records of all spiritual figures as incomplete, historically inaccurate (as ALL history is to varying extents), but ultimately 'real', in the sense i feel myself to be connected with the evolving spirit of Love and Consciousness.

i no longer believe in the biblical jesus, but, as mother teresa said "“I believe in person to person. Every person is Christ for me, and since there is only one Jesus, that person is the one person in the world at that moment.”

i don't believe in literal eternal life, but i believe in the spirit of jesus, which is passed from fleshly vessel to fleshly vessel, and shared this very moment by many, including myself.

reference my sig

delusion though it may be, i far prefer it to secular materialism

Originally posted by Leo Volont


Your premise is that people were stupider back then. Did they elect George Bush King of the World? Are they burning down the World over some silly cartoons? Look at your own slim essay, and ask whether it demonstrates any solid improvement on the works of the Ancient Civilizations. But we can refer to the Biblical Narrative and find that apparently the people back then were used to a standard of literature and philosophy that far exceeds the efforts you have put forth. Elements from the Sermon of the Mount, some several of the Parable Allagories have become moral treasures that have been incorporated into the commentaries of all of the World's Higher Religions. Jesus is often quoted by Zoroastrians, Mahayana Buddhists, Hindus, Yogin.... being disowned only by the Jews, ironically enough. You say that people were 'fooled' but it rather seems they have been instructed and improved by this Christly influence. But you dismiss all that as gullibility.

It is indeed difficult to believe how you can suppose any generation less sophisticated then yourself. What you would deserve is a World to live in that would be absent of any of the Moral Influences that you despise. You want Barbarism. I hope you get plenty.

I asked to place your toughts, but I did not ask for a critic. If your not even going to asnwer the question posted then don't even bother writting anything because no one wants to read replies like the one you made.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Leo, you have the shortest, most selective memory of anyone I've ever internet-met. Well, except maybe the Rev.

And as per usual, you are not literate enough to express what you must be thinking about.

Originally posted by Kreator8

I asked to place your toughts, but I did not ask for a critic. If your not even going to asnwer the question posted then don't even bother writting anything because no one wants to read replies like the one you made.

So, you only want other people who will agree with you to write and and tell you how perceptive and insightful you are. Well, so would I. However, I've been around long enough to know that I can rarely expect the applause of the World. But you still hold out hope that everyone will recognize your value, your genius, your transcendent worth.

Don't hold your breath.

Really, I sometimes believe that if people do not have at least a modicum of intelligence, they will miss the point of even some of the most profound and striking truths. This is especially True of regarding the importance of the Christ. Sometimes one thinks one is trying to convince monkeys of one's viewpoint. But let me give it one more try.

Forget about the historical Jesus for a moment. Now let us look at the Cultural Christ. If one goes to any Mental Institution or Insane Asylum, one will find that no personage in History has been able to establish a greater Archetypical Presence in the Human Psychie then Jesus Christ. I can attest to this personally. Even during my deepest phase in Oriental Studies, Yoga, and Meditation, even then my Dreams and Visions resorted to Catholic Symbologies and Christian Archetypes.

This presents us with a De Facto Reality. Complaining that it is a lie is to no purpose since the Truth of the matter is that Christianity, whatever its source, has taken on a Life of Its Own.

And it is a Providential Life. Whatever the historical record in Judea of the 1st Century, we have thoroughtly documented in modern times the supernatural events surrounding the lives of more than a dozen first magnitude Saints, each demonstrating enough Supernatural Talent themselves to verify that this Jesus Christ could well have been tapping from that same Miraculous Well -- what the Saints call The Vine of Christ.

Yes, I can see doubting Protestants, since they have never been able to demonstrate the Supernaturalism that they claim is the basis for their Religion. But the Catholics have so such problem, and their Religion is verified by modern events and current documentations. In view of demonstrated Providential Divine Powers, which in their context assert a continuity going back to Christ Himself, the Truth of Christiantinity, or rather Catholicism, can be inferred.

Denials are achieveable only by the most resolute adherence to the most bigoted and narrow-minded species of ignorance, that is, where any intelligence is involved. But I do admit that congenitally silly people need hardly take any effort in order to be so obtuse.

Why does it matter if Jesus existed or not? His existence isn't something that Christianity depends on for it's existence. I mean, if he didn't exist, one could just argue that the Bible's used him as an example of how people should try to act. The prinicpals remain the same. And if he did exist, it doesn't really effect the Atheist's point. I mean, if such a person did exist, someone who wasn't a Christian would just write him off as some guy who just got put in a lot of exaggerated tales. So, who cares? I personally don't think he existed, who knows? It doesn't really make any difference.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Why does it matter if Jesus existed or not? His existence isn't something that Christianity depends on for it's existence. I mean, if he didn't exist, one could just argue that the Bible's used him as an example of how people should try to act. *The prinicpals remain the same. And if he did exist, it doesn't really effect the Atheist's point. I mean, if such a person did exist, someone who wasn't a Christian would just write him off as some guy who just got put in a lot of exaggerated tales. So, who cares? I personally don't think he existed, *who knows? It doesn't really make any difference.

But if he did exist and could do all the things people claimed to do , then i would be a changed person (out of fear of hell mostly) . But unfortuanately they didnt have video cameras back then so i guess its hope for nothingness after life , that or eternal damnation <gulp> .

Fact is i just cant have faith in such a thing as religion , my brain will just not accept it . I tried for years , thought i believed , but i was just nieve (sp?) . I was a catholic , but then when i was finally old enough to have my own opinion the supposed belief went away . Or maybe it wasnt even there , maybe it was just the sense of community and connection with others .

Originally posted by Kreator8
I personaly don't believe in Jesus. I have my doubts. I have read alot of stuff off the bible and still find it hard to believe in Jesus. I think that the only reason why people did believe in him back then, if he did really exist, is because people back then were easier to fool. He migh have existed but I don't believe he was sent by God. If some how it were to be proven that Jesus wasn't a decendent of God, what would you do? wouldn't that be the biggest lie ever? Would you be dissapointed? I personaly wouldn't. I would just continue my life. Please post you thoughts and feelings.

It doesn't really matter if jesus existed or not, or if he was the son of god on earth or not. You got to look at things in ways of his teachings; I'm not a christian church person, personally because I think of Jesus as a Socialist/Humanist idealist back at his days, wich would have been a very hard thing to do at those times, he left his teachings and ideals, but the christian church have completly forgetten that, if Jesus were the son of god, and appeard again on this days, I'm pretty sure he would go to the vatican to kick some asses(especially the pope sitting on a gold chair). Mixing Jesus Ideals to what the christian church has become is wrong, it does not follow his teachings by one bit, the christian church is a populist religion, were most of it followers are illiteral to its teaching. If Jesus existed or not, his teachings were what was important.

Originally posted by Sortilegio


It doesn't really matter if jesus existed or not, or if he was the son of god on earth or not. You got to look at things in ways of his teachings; I'm not a christian church person, personally because I think of Jesus as a Socialist/Humanist idealist back at his days, wich would have been a very hard thing to do at those times, he left his teachings and ideals, but the christian church have completly forgetten that, if Jesus were the son of god, and appeard again on this days, I'm pretty sure he would go to the vatican to kick some asses(especially the pope sitting on a gold chair). Mixing Jesus Ideals to what the christian church has become is wrong, it does not follow his teachings by one bit, the christian church is a populist religion, were most of it followers are illiteral to its teaching. If Jesus existed or not, his teachings were what was important.

no shit. i mean, if he existed historically he would have been a dreadlocked revolutionary wandering the country with a ragtag bunch of disciples, rubbing elbows with hookers and outcasts, and throwing money changers out of the temple.

and presently fat, lazy 'christians' sit in their expensive churches on sunday and pretend they live according to the teachings of that same man, who is quoted in their bibles as saying "sell all you have, and give it to the poor"

even the records of the early christian church (in the bible's book of Acts) describe it as a group of people following a radical new philosophy, sharing everything they owned and living communally.

if i saw a church like that, i might give church-going another try

Originally posted by Asher

*if i saw a church like that, i might give church-going another try *

Well, there is budhism, but you'd have to go to Nepal

Originally posted by Asher


*no shit. i mean, if he existed historically he would have been a dreadlocked revolutionary wandering the country with a ragtag bunch of disciples, rubbing elbows with hookers and outcasts, and throwing money changers out of the temple. *

*and presently fat, lazy 'christians' sit in their expensive churches on sunday and pretend they live according to the teachings of that same man, who is quoted in their bibles as saying "sell all you have, and give it to the poor"

*even the records of the early christian church (in the bible's book of Acts) describe it as a group of people following a radical new philosophy, sharing everything they owned and living communally.

*if i saw a church like that, i might give church-going another try *

I am not seeing enough discernment or distinction here.

Can anybody seriously suppose that the Catholic Religious Orders have any degree of responsibility for the Things which all of you are criticizing.

Yes, the Catholic Bishops are wrong for persisting to keep Paul remembered in Doctrine. But the Bishops represent less than .1% of the Catholic Church. And although they have taken upon themselves to suppose themselves the Heads of what they even refer to as the Secular Church, the Catholic Religious Orders are quite free to thumb their noises at those pompous Bishops.

But as deficient as the Bishops are, they at least recognize something of the Teachings of Christ. They deserve some credit there. If one needs to assign some Blame, and certainly there should be some blame for how the World has come to view Christian Hypocricy, then we should view the Protestants. ALL of their doctrine comes from Paul. There is not the slightest thread of Spirituality in the entire Protestant Realm. What Good Reputation Christianity had -- for afterall, every Moral Thought encompassed by our Civilization was brought to us by the Catholic Christian Church -- but the Protestant World, those who defeated Catholicism on the field of Battle, insisted on poisoning that Memory and ruining that good reputation with every slight and distortion that the english liars of Western History could propagate.

So when you are bitching about Christianity, you should care to compare those Paulist Hawks of the Religious Right -- those war-mongers, coin changers and slave drivers -- sinning because they are taught by Paul that by murdering Jesus, Heaven would still be at the end of the road that they pave deep and dirty in the vilest Sin -- compare these Protestants with the Holy Orders of Ascetic Religous Poverty that have always and still do form the core of Catholic Spirituality.

Go to your Hindu Yogins, your Sufi Orders, your Buddhist Monks and ask them how the Catholic Religios Orders measure up even in their own frames of reference. Indeed, I once surprised me, but it became quite common place to see that those Religious Orders of all the World's Higher Religions were welcome to attend 'Crossover Retreats' at the Catholic Monasteries and Convents, and when the invitations came from the other direction, the Catholic Religious Orders were delighted to attend the Retreats and Conferences of those their Spiritual Brothers.

Is it not ironic, that while it is Catholic Civilization which has taught the West all of its concepts and traditions of Morality, it is with these very same vestiges of Moral Reflection that the West attacks what is left of those moral and religious institutions. If you want to blame Christianity, then you should at least use your discernment and correct your aim. The Protestant Paulists, who have never had anything to do with Christ, who destroyed Moral Civilization for their Warism and Capitalism -- that is whom you should be targetting.

Instead you pick on monks and nuns. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Throwing stones at Mother Theresa.

sheesh leo, you're a prickly one sometimes.

Instead you pick on monks and nuns. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. *

Throwing stones at Mother Theresa[/b]

.

when the hell did i even mention monks or nuns?

"and presently fat, lazy 'christians' sit in their expensive churches on sunday and pretend they live according to the teachings of that same man, who is quoted in their bibles as saying "sell all you have, and give it to the poor"

the truth is i had mostly protestants in mind when i wrote that. the only way you could imply i was talking about 'monks or nuns' (seriously, where did you read that?) was if you grouped them in with the fat lazy christians sitting in their expensive churches.

you are overly defensive of catholicism leo. you too often assume everyone is out to shit on semi-esoteric catholic orders, even when the thought isn't even remotely present in their comments.

there are hindus who are deserve to be bashed, along with buddhists (who i have heard you critisize for drinking, smoking, and sexing up young girls), and muslims as well.
you cannot expect people to add the disclaimer "oh, but when i was critisizing the hypocritical, shallow practices of this particular group i wasn't referring to this relatively non-existent sub-group...the legitimate yogins, or sufis, or order of bloody mary.."

yeesh

Originally posted by Asher
*you are overly defensive of catholicism leo. you too often assume everyone is out to shit on semi-esoteric catholic orders, even when the thought isn't even remotely present in their comments.
*yeesh *

Well, yes, they attack like jackels... like Lawyers. They go after only what is most vulnerable. Of course, they don't mention the Blameless and Most Reputable and Highly Esteemed Religious Orders. Because they can't.

But everytime I mention the Value of Catholicism, I must hear brazen references to pedophilia and then ignorant accusations concerning the Crusades, as though everyone regrets that Christiandom mounted a Defence against the Huns and the Mongels and are deeply sorry that Ghengis Khan was not allowed to plow through all the way to Dublin, so that Europe today could now have all the genetic and cultural attractions that we find so appealling now in the Mid East. So the attacks against Catholicism are unremitting, but, as you point out, extremely selective.

I wished to point out that attacks on Catholicism are attacks against the most important institutions of Catholicism -- the Religious Orders. Those who started the attack on Catholicism in Europe did not initially wish to attack the Religious Orders, but, then, as things progressed, there was nothing left to do. The lands of the Monasteries could not be confiscated without first demonizing the Monks and the Nuns. So those of the Religious Orders were slaughtered wholesale, and it was little comfort that the Intellectuals among the Protestant Ranks had not intended what their attacks effected.

Then there is the matter of perspective. If it occurrs to people that the Religious Orders are praiseworthy and laudable, then it might influence them to discern that they have been mislead by an Ubiquitous Protestant and Masonic Anti-Catholic propaganda. It may dawn upon them that there had perhaps been a Dark Agenda behind discrediting this bundle of Catholic Insitutions that not only have given us our Civilization, but now attempts to maintain it against the most scurrilous of enemies and the most overwhelming of odds.

It always surprises me how ready people are to rally against their own best interests. The Protestants and the Mason raise the alarm of Hate against Catholicism and everyone joins in. Why!? Do people want this Wage Slavery imposed upon them. Do people want this Democratic Ethnic Determinism -- endless Civil War -- forced down their throats? Do people want to foster an Amoral Secular Nilihism only because it frees up the impulses for greed and predatory human exploitation? yes, apparently they do. Catholicism, THEIR ONLY DEFENSE, the only Institution left on Earth willing to stand for Human Dignity and Morality -- the people side with their Slave Drivers to throw stones at their only friends.

Yes, you have no problems with the Religious Orders. Maybe you should wonder why you have problems with any part of Catholicism, especially when you consider whom you are giving comfort to when you continue in your endless attacks on the very Institution which gave Europe its Civilization and the very sense of Morality that is now being twisted around to attack its very source.