Is Jesus misunderstood?
Offline Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood and not wrong? I am not an Atheist nor do I support any organized religion, but I do appreciate and highly value free and intelligent thinking. Most Christians (and other people) misunderstand Jesus’ messages. They often read his teaching literarily when they were meant to be taken poetically, metaphorically, and symbolically. For example, the gates of Heaven don't really exist in the ethers. The gates (or a doorway) represent transition and heaven represents consciousness. Therefore, passing through the gates of heaven is a transition into a higher form of consciousness and not something you simply get for being a good person, a believer in the Almighty, or repenting your sins.
Perhaps, Heaven is not a place that we go to when we die, but a place we journey to when we are alive. To get to Heaven one must pray. Prayer is the action that changes the subconscious. One must change the subconscious to reach a higher form of consciousness or in this case Heaven. If done so properly and intelligently prayer will lead you into a higher form of consciousness.
Another example of Jesus’ teaching is being misunderstood, and correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus never taught about Hell. Hell was not in the original Christian message, but rather conceived of later. In the Lord's Prayer, the first two words are "Our Father". Jesus is trying to establish the nature of God; in this case that of father and child. This would rule out any possibility that God is a relentless and cruel tyrant that is often pictured in Theology. What sort of father would send their child to Hell?
Over thousands of years, Jesus’ message had plenty of time to be convoluted by others. He was a man before his time. His message was written with intelligence, poetry, metaphors, and symbols which can and often be easily misunderstood. Did you know that Jesus was against organized religion, since he saw the potential for power and corruption? Like many Christians, others, and the RRS who try to understand Christianity, it is unfortunate that Jesus’ teachings (the original concept of Christianity) are not being understood properly. Jesus’ teachings are not to be taken literarily. They are spiritual messages for spiritual growth.
I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god(s), personal spirits, or that a spiritual world exists with science and logic. These concepts are spiritual. Spiritual is the opposite of material. The material world can be explained by science and logic, but not the spiritual world. If the RRS is on a quest to scientifically and logically disprove the existence of god(s), then that in itself is irrational....and ironic.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god. Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational?
A subjective experience can be explained rationally in ways other than religion. Theists generally don't care to do so is all. Most don't even try. The fact remains that theism is irrational.
Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational?
Beauty and love have objective characteristics as well as subjective ones, so this is an irrelevant comparison.
I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes?
Because love doesn't cause more harm than good. And a quest to eliminate an emotion without the capability to do so or a very good reason to would be irrational.
RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so.
It most assuredly is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Offline You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god. Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational? Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational? I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes? RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so.
You can easily argue that it's irrational to believe in god. This one is simple, too. Because there are more leaps of, for lack of a better word, faith when discussing about the existance of a God than there are with out, it becomes an irrational thought.
For example: If God created everything, what created God? If God is eternal (that would be the only answer if God was not created) then time and space, both which he created, are eternal as well... which is not the case.
It doesn't simplify the problem one bit. It makes it more complex which, in turn, makes it less likely to be the right answer which, in turn, makes it an irrational though.
Offline You can easily argue that it's irrational to believe in god. This one is simple, too. Because there are more leaps of, for lack of a better word, faith when discussing about the existance of a God than there are with out, it becomes an irrational thought.
For example: If God created everything, what created God? If God is eternal (that would be the only answer if God was not created) then time and space, both which he created, are eternal as well... which is not the case.
It doesn't simplify the problem one bit. It makes it more complex which, in turn, makes it less likely to be the right answer which, in turn, makes it an irrational though.
I would never argue that God created everything. Now that’s just silly. I will argue that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept who manifests himself/herself in the physical world through the individual's thoughts and beliefs.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline I would never argue that God created everything. Now that’s just silly. I will argue that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept who manifests himself/herself in the physical world through the individual's thoughts and beliefs.
If you can argue it, you can surely prove it using evidence, correct? If not, then this is just as irrational.
Offline Deviant wrote:I would never argue that God created everything. Now that’s just silly. I will argue that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept who manifests himself/herself in the physical world through the individual's thoughts and beliefs.
If you can argue it, you can surely prove it using evidence, correct? If not, then this is just as irrational.
The best argument I have now is that god is a metaphysical and spiritual concept, so it therefore its origin begins with subjective thought. Someone who believes that God created Adam and Eve, heaven and Hell in which he judges who enters which realm, a gigantic flood, The Virgin Mother Mary etc. These thoughts will manifest on to the physical plan when these people propound their faith.
Have you ever had anyone try to “save” you? These people are delusional and irrational and a pain in the ass. Their conception of god begins on the metaphysical and spiritual plane and when they knock on your door god is manifesting on the physical plane.
Now I have a grandmother who believes in God. Her son, my uncle, has been critical condition and close to dying for months. She also prays to God for inner strength to get through these tough times. Whether or not God exists, her prayers make her stronger and bring her some inner peace during these turbulent times. I am witness to that. Again this is god beginning on the metaphysical and spiritual planes and manifesting onto the physical plane. I just don’t understand why her faith in God to bring her strength during these time is considered irrational.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline What makes you think his "teachings" aren't suppose to be literarily? You're just making a guess, probably based on the fact that you can obviously see if taken literally his teachings don't make sense. If his teachings were meant to not be taken literally then I believe this would have been made clear.
You are guessing that I am guessing. Ad infinitum But one can argue on the various views on Jesus’ teachings One of the most common views is that the Hyperbole View, which argues that portions of what Jesus taught are hyperbole, and that if one is to apply the teaching to the real world, they need to be "toned down." Most “normal” people who believe in Jesus’ and what he taught agree that there is some hyperbole within his teaching, but there is disagreement over exactly which sections should not be taken literally.
As far as prayer leading you into a higher form on consciousness, I believe that is a buddhist believe and in no way a christian belief.
Now you are guessing. It’s a Christian belief also and what Jesus emphasized.
The same one that would ask a father to sacrifice his own child to prove he loved god more. The same god who would slaughter the first born of an entire community, solely because he wanted to have some fun with a Pharaoh. The same one that would wipe out the entire world save a few animals on a boat because he felt like it. The same god who would encourage all his followers to kill his non followers. Need I go on?
No need to go on. I am not taking about the same conception of god as in your examples. Nor do I believe in a god that created a universe, caused a flood, is against stem cell research, who wants people to fight and die for him, who can miraculously heal people, etc.
His message wasn't written by anyone who knew him, they were written by anonymous people decades at least after his death. Who's to say anything written is really what he taught.
True enough, and this is probably a source of misunderstanding. It can be argued that Matthew gives us the most complete arranged version of the Sermon on the Mount.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline to respond to your first post deviant, i think it is a great say. you've posed interesting thoughts and perhaps connected a few ideas i've been trying to find words for. religion does scare me and i think a lot of people misunderstand what Jesus was trying to teach. it's that or they get a slight understanding and run completely the wrong way with it, without further growth and prayer.
LOL, i've rewrote this paragraph 3 times already and think it may be best left alone for now. too often we jump to conclusions and add in our personal "pre-defined rants". i find myself saying the same things over and over without truly listing to the questions/answers provided. i will continue to read this post and allow it to it's natural course. may God be with you in your voice, mind and heart.
i will dig deeper on the subject tonight in prayer and meditation. thank you for sharing your ideas, they pose great thought to me.
EDIT: took out some stuff... did not want to overkill my points nor pose ideas to be "refuted" different from what is already being discussed.
May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.
Offline Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood
Sure, assuming that there was a historical Jesus who actually had a message.
and not wrong?
It's possible. Or he might be both misunderstood and wrong. But since no-one knows what the historical Jesus said (or if he existed at all), it seems an immaterial point.
Jesus’ teachings are not to be taken literarily.
How do you know that? How do you even know what he said?
If the RRS is on a quest to scientifically and logically disprove the existence of god(s)
No; what we do is expose the absurdy of religion in order to help our fellow human beings free themselves from its slavery.
Offline Do you think that it is possible that Jesus’ messages are grossly misunderstood and not wrong?
Yes, assuming that Jesus actually existed and that his words as recorded in the canonical gospels is accurate and complete (which is itself a huge, unfounded assumption), any reasonable person can read the gospels and easily see that Christians have grossly misunderstood the message these documents are communicating.
When I read the Gospels, it's clear to me that the message of the character named Jesus is something along the lines of, "These Jewish Priests need to stop exploiting people with all these silly rules--and I might be the messiah prophesied in the scriptures." I think that's a pretty reasonable message.
Most of the misunderstanding comes from rampant equivocation--people coming along later and assuming that very different terms actually mean the same thing:
Son of Man = Son of God = Messiah = God incarnate
Kingdom of God = Kingdom of Heaven = Afterlife of eternal reward
That garbage dump outside Jerusalem ("Gehenna"
= Eternal Cutting off = Afterlife of eternal punishment
These are just the most egregious ones. The list goes on and on. After 30 years of study, I still don't know why anybody would think that "Son of Man" (which refers to a prophetic figure from the book of Daniel) and "Son of God" (which refers to the Roman Emperor or the Greek/Roman tradition of deifying the political head of state) would ever mean the same thing. Yet most mainstream Protestants read them as synonymous.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Offline I have received some nice feedback from all you and I would like to address a couple of questions that have been posed.
The first one is: How do I know that Jesus existed?
I don’t have concrete evidence. I can argue that he is one of the most influential persons in the history of mankind. I see no harm in studying him and his so-called teaching to gain a better understanding. I believe that his teachings are metaphysical and therefore open to interpretation. Many problems arise due to conflicting interpretations and intolerance.
The second is: How do I know that Jesus’ teaching were not supposed to be taken literarily?
Again, I do not have 100% concrete evidence, but I will argue that he was a student/teacher of metaphysics. This is a sensible argument that does not require a leap of faith. If you believe that it was possible that Jesus was student/teacher of metaphysics, then his teachings cannot be taken literarily. To convey metaphysical concepts requires allegories, symbolism, and metaphors.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline
No; what we do is expose the absurdy of religion in order to help our fellow human beings free themselves from its slavery.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Kemono that religion contains an abundance of absurdities and people should be freed from their shackles. I hope you accomplish your goal in a productive and helpful way.
I hold my ground in that one can believe in a metaphysical and spiritual conception of god without all the baggage of theology, ecclesiasticism, enforcement of “the will of god” upon others, and various doctrines, especially the doctrines of eternal damnation or bliss
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline
I hold my ground in that one can believe in a metaphysical and spiritual conception of god without all the baggage of theology, ecclesiasticism, enforcement of “the will of god” upon others, and various doctrines, especially the doctrines of eternal damnation or bliss
I would have responded to your response to my earlier post, but it's obvious that you only want to accuse others of assuming and misinterpeting even though that's all you're doing as well.
Offline I would have responded to your response to my earlier post, but it's obvious that you only want to accuse others of assuming and misinterpeting even though that's all you're doing as well.
I am not solely here to accuse others of their assumptions and interpretations. I know we are going to butt heads. That’s ok, and perhaps necessary, but I hope we can agree to disagree and carry it out in a respectful manner.
You are right to a degree that I am partially here to accuse, but it is in the sense to find fault and disagree with others, but not to cast blame. I expect the same of others and of you. If you find fault in my statements and beliefs please let me know. Finding fault helps discover truth. Isn’t that a reason why you are here, to discover truth? I see that this site offers the opportunity for me to either strengthen or weaken my belief system.
Do not just state broadly and vaguely that it is obvious that I am here to make accusations. Please bring something to table like you did in your previous statement. Who knows, perhaps we can learn from one another.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Offline What do you mean when you say God exists as a "metaphysical and spiritual concept"? How is this different from a regular concept? I would very much appreciate your thoughts.
If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.
Offline You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god. Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational? Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational? I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes? RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so.
Love can be objectively studied, it is a physical phenomenon. It doesn't mean we shouldn't feel it. I've been in love, but it is possible to be in love and know scientifically that it is a release of dopemine in the brain associated with a certain person that is necessitated by evolution and the need to reproduce. Such emotions can be inescapable, but at the same time absolutely fantastic. Telling someone not to fall in love is like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.
God is not a physical phenomenon, it cannot be studied objectively, there is no evidence for him/her/it. The belief can be gotten rid of, it is not inescapable.
Offline You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god.
Sure you can. Any unjustified belief, clung to through emotion, is irrational by definition.
Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational?
They don't need to be to refute your claim: all we need to know is that some subjective experience are irrational.
Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational?
You keep committing the same fallacy. Let me give you an example of your logic.
Hitler was a man.
Are all men evil?
No.
Ergo, Hitler was a nice guy?
Do you see the problem with your logic?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The RRS is not there to disprove anything. It is known to be logically impossible. It's there to demonstrate that it's irrational to believe in god.
You cannot argue that it is irrational to believe in god. Believing in god is a subjective experience. Are all subjective experience irrational? Beauty and Love also have subjective characteristics and are they irrational? I have seen love make some people very irrational but also stronger and better people. Why isn’t RSS on a crusade against love and freeing people from the irrationalities that it causes? RRS has a vendetta against religion and perhaps some of that vendetta is deservedly so.
I asked to be banned, so I was banned.
Another example of Jesus’ teaching is being misunderstood, and correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus never taught about Hell. Hell was not in the original Christian message, but rather conceived of later. In the Lord's Prayer, the first two words are "Our Father". Jesus is trying to establish the nature of God; in this case that of father and child. This would rule out any possibility that God is a relentless and cruel tyrant that is often pictured in Theology. What sort of father would send their child to Hell?
http://arlettaq.spaces.live.com