Does everybody here buy the "Christ rose from the grave" thing?

[Floogeldy]

Does this mean his body came back to life, like Frankenstein?

Or does it mean his "spirit" rose from the dead?

:shrug:

BTW, Sam Kennison had a real funny comedy bit about how people reacted when Christ walked out of his tomb. Did anyone else see that? It was hilarious!

B-)

[imenja]

1. his soul of course

but witnesses say his body also rose. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What's important is the message of love, forgiveness, and care for the poor that he devoted his life to.

[caledesi]

4. VG IM....that's sounds reasonable. nt

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

48. why not?

what difference does it make in your life? Must everyone believe exactly as you do? We have separation of church and state for a reason. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. That means we also have freedom of atheism and freedom from atheism. No one here is telling you what to believe. Why do you feel a need to limits the beliefs of others?

There are two separate issues at word here: One is Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure; the other is Jesus Christ as the son of the Christian God. Empirical evidence only matters for the former. Religion may be entirely fabricated and still be valid. It speaks to the spiritual and metaphysical, not the material world. As a result, it is not dependent on proof.

Are you similarly concerned with historical proof for Abraham, Moses, and Mohammad. How about the Buddha or Confucius? The African deities of the Yoruba based religions, also practiced in Brazil and Cuba (including Imenja, the goddess of the sea who inspires my screen name)? Why or why not? Are you the self-declared thought police of all peoples on earth? Gosh, I thought Fox News had that one covered.

[Red State Rebel]

91. That's why we are called believers

We believe that on the 3rd day he rose again and shortly thereafter ascended to heaven to the right hand of God.

What form he was in or how he was recognized isn't as important as the fact that there were several people who did see him.

Faith is the belief of things unseen.

[Pithlet]

2. I don't.

Though I'm a Christmas and Easter atheist. I can't help it; even though I'm not a believer, I love the holidays they celebrate. Cute bunnies and Cadbury Cream Eggs. What's not to love?

[imenja]

3. pagan

everyone knows the Cadbury's mini eggs are what Easter is really about. :think:

[Pithlet]

7. Reminds me of Eddie Izzard

and his bit about Easter.

Well, you tell me! It’s got nothing to do with it, has it! You know, people going, uhh, “Remember kids,” the kids who’re eating the chocolate eggs, uhh, “Jesus died for your sins.” “Yeah, I know, it’s great! No, no no, it’s bad, it’s bad! No, it’s bad! It’s very bad. It’s terrible! Whatever you want, I mean – just keep giving me these eggs.”

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

40. Izzard is hilarious.

"Easter's the holiday where Jesus dies for your sins, and comes back as a bunny who lays chocolate eggs?"

[RevolutionaryActs]

8. Those traditions, the Christmas Tree and the Easter Bunny

have nothing to with the Christian thing.

They were pagan and druid things that the Christians took over. The bunny is a pagan thing that represents spring and futility. :)

[Freebird12004]

27. Many of the old traditions are Pagan.

As the Druid and Pagan beliefs came about long before Christianity existed.

[caledesi]

110. And the days of the week are pretty paganistic. Who cares?

Let's just enjoy these holidays in our own personal way.

I don't know about you guys, but my husband and I both grew up in pretty dysfunctional families and holidays meant a lot. Mommy and Daddy were "happy" during these times. We saw relatives, ate a great meal, got a gift or two and just for a day, everything was normal.

[Freebird12004]

113. Well put Caledesi !

It's my belief that that as long as a person is doing what is good or correct it doesn't matter "in who's name".

We were born to celebrate the gift of life!

[ContraBass Black]

64. What? Easter is the celebration of futility?

This is pointless! Give me more chocolate! ;-)

[lapfog_1]

29. You realize that both Easter and Christmas

are stolen from the pagans?

Christ was not born in the winter, and no where near the winter
solstice. Christmas and the Christmas tree and lights and so on
are the attempt of the pagans to ward off the darkness and winter
(hence the lights and the greenery) on the shortest day of the year.
All of the Easter imagery (bunnies, eggs, etc) is a pagan fertility
holiday. Springtime being the ideal time to plant seeds of all
kinds.

[Skittles]

46. yup

I mailed some PEEPS to Iraq. :o

[El Fuego]

83. They're just pagan holidays anyhow.

The early christians just appropriated them to convert the pagans.

I'm not religious, but I'll celebrate anyone's holiday! Today I'm off work for Good Friday - YAY!

[cornfedyank]

5. the spirit reentered the body

thereby proving death mute.

[Borgnine]

6. He's Zombie Jesus.

Somewhere, he still wanders the Roman countryside feeding on the flesh of the innocent.

[Floogeldy]

10. Zombies

[_TJ_]

100. Wrong!

Romans wander the earth feeding on the flesh of Jesus :)

[CanuckAmok]

9. I still don't get the "Jesus died for our sins" thing.

Not to sound disrespectful, but I don't understand it. We still sin, right? So what did His death accomplish?

Everytime I've asked a Christian "Why did Jesus die for our sins"? I get the following response (in various statements):

"Because He died for our sins!"

[RevolutionaryActs]

12. I always wondered,

what the other people who were crucified died for......

Or did they just die for the normal reason that crucification was given as a punishment, treason against the Roman Empire? :shrug:

[CanuckAmok]

14. Theft, adultery, arson... all the fun stuff.

Crucifixion was pretty commonplace.

In fact, if I remember my Bible at all, the two other men crucified with Jesus were thieves.

[ghostsofgiants]

17. The way I understand it...

Before Jesus was crucified, people would atone for their sins with animal sacrifice. When Jesus was crucified, this acted as the ultimate sacrifice, and then all that had to be done was to accept Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice to atone for sins.

not saying I actually believe it, but that's the rationale behind it as I understand it.

[CanuckAmok]

18. well, fuck me.

That actually has some logic behind it, as far as supernatural tales go. I'm 37, and I've been asking people this question for probably 35 years. This is the first non-dismissive answer I've ever been given.

It's not too much, one would think, to ask someone to explain in layman's terms, the cornerstone of his faith.

I think that's why I have so much dontempt for religious dogma in general... it's just parroted without much contemplation or understanding, by so many alleged 'believers'.

[ghostsofgiants]

21. Kind of weird to get it from someone who gave up on religion at 13, huh?

I'd say I know more about the shit than most of your typical religious right douchebags.

[Schema Thing]

60. hell, I hung on to it till I was 37

but you did explain the general thinking, and frankly, it's stupid and primitive, and from a modern perspective, even evil.

[DODI]

39. Am I remembering correctly, that by his death and

resurrection he opened the gates of Heaven, prior to this people did not go to Heaven?

[MountainLaurel]

81. I bet a lot of lambs and goats

Were smiling after that day -- "Hey, we're out of danger guys, let's go chew on the priest's robes!"

[dr.strangelove]

57. Let me explain my understanding

It has been many years, but I think it goes like this.

God created life in many forms. he created angels and all of heaven, which christians believe is filled with living beings. life in heaven is immortal. he then created the earth and life on it. man was created in his image, which would have been immortal. however, the wages of sin is death. prior to adams original sin, he would have lived forever, however his sin ruined the plan. god gave man free will, and would not undo what man chose. so adam and his descendants died. they did not reach immortality in heaven or on earth. men prayed and tried to live life without sin. god was goign to write off the earth, but the childen of israel were sticking to the deal he struck with moses and abraham. they were trying to live without sin. god then decided to allow them another chance. however he would not change the free will of man. man chose to sin, and therefore must live with the result being mortality and death. however, god would allow men who strived to avoid sin, the opportunity to be cleansed of the sin of adam, and follow their own course of free will. if one could live without sin, one should be rewarded. the reward could not come on this earth, since god had already ruled that man must all die due to the original sin. however, he would provide men with the chance to have immortality in heaven, like the angels and all life in heaven enjoys.

god needed a plan to accomplish this. he entered into a pact with moses, then with abram, that if man could prove they could live without sinm, he would create a paradox that would allow man to die on earth, but gain immortality in heaven. one part of life would die and the other part of life would never die. to accomplish this, he needed to have man's debt be paid. this is the leep of faith part, that to accomplish this paradox, life after death and life after sin, one without sin must die, which is a paradox since only sin can lead to death. the death of a non-sinner would allow those who atoned for their sins to be born again without sin. though all born of sin must die in this world, those reborn after the death of the non-sinner, would have the chance at the immortality in heaven.

in order for a non-sinner to die, he could not be of adam's bloodline, meaning he could not be a man who has sin. god could have created another man, but the man's free will could have led to sin, or the decision not to die. Therefor god took it under his own power and sent a piece of himself to earth as a man. born of a man, the piece of god was human, but also was god. he was not of adam's bloodline, since the birth was without the joining of men. it was not mary's egg or joseph's sperm. it was god. mary carried the child and gave birth the a perfect human, one without sin. god then chose to die without sin, which created a paradox. the death of one without sin would not be possible, unless god chose to allow the death and give man another chance. so god chose to die and allow the paradox, which allowed men to be reborn without sin and gain entry into heaven.

I know that was a very poor job of explaining it, but it has been over 10 years since my college Theo classes. I went to a catholic university and took a few Theo classes to boost the GPA (very easy classes to get an A). I tried to be open minded, but I should admit to being an atheist, so I might have let my personal doubts color my descriptions. I'm fairly sure thats an accurate, if inarticulate, explanation of why and how god/jesus died for humanity's sins. At least that was what the catholic priest who taught my class taught me.

[ImpeachBush]

71. God sure does hold a nasty grudge against Adam and humankind.

Been a lot of water under the bridge since Adam and Eve ate that apple. Seems that God would have lightened up a little bit, don't you think?

[dr.strangelove]

84. I have no idea

I try to be open minded about the religion thing. While I do not believe in god, I am not conceited enough to believe I am infallible. I may certainly be wrong and there may indeed be a god. If there is a god, I certainly would not begin to understand what being a deity would be like. I don't think my mind could begin to grasp the infinite.

To plays devil's advocate though, why would he need to lighten up. If you are talking about infinite time, in the grand scheme a hundred thousand years is not very long for someone to get over it. If you had been around for over 100 trillion years, even the few billion years since the formation of the earth is pretty much a drop in the bucket. Maybe holding a grudge for a few thousand years is like you or I being pissed off at someone over the weekend. I have certainly done that, and I think thats fairly reasonable.

As for the theology behind it, sin is not something god takes away. Its not something to get over after some water under the bridge. christians believe that sin is part of you. I can't get my great grandfather's genes out of my body, even though a shit load of crap has taken place since he was born. If original sin in part of your soul, like my granddad's physical characteristic are part of my DNA, everyone has it. Original sin can't be genetically selected out like say color blindness can.

god gave man free will, and we fucked up and sinned. god ain't gonna go back on his word and change the free will thing. If you believe this stuff, then you are a son of adam and you have to deal with the sin, just like I have to deal with bad hair and green eyes. Sin is a constant. If you believe in this, I'd be pissed off at adam and eve, not god. Anyway, christians believe that god did get over it. he gave a deal to people if they lived a good life and avoided sin they would get another shot at immortality. this is the basis for judaism and christianity, to strive for that second chance. christians believe the chance was already won and jesus' death "opened the door to heaven." I'm fairly sure that christians believe god is over the adam and eve thing and has already lightened up on it. Anyone who wants to choose heaven can do so.

Anyway, I don't buy it, but several billion people do believe in a god. I'm not sure I'm right. I'm gonna take that chance though and live life on my own terms. My rules are really not that different than christianity. I don't, or at least try not to steal, hurt others or hate. I like to help others and believe we should all treat each other like we are family.

[ImpeachBush]

89. I enojoyed your reply, and agree with what you wrote ....

I suppose I was thinking in terms of my lifetime, and when you compare that to infinity, several thousand years is less than a drop in the bucket. Good point.

And you're right about the sin thing. I try to live a good, decent life, but I find it very difficult to avoid sinning (white lies, envy, wanting more than I have, thinking ill of others, sometimes wishing harm to certain people, etc., etc., etc.) I TRY to live a good life, but sin is still with me everyday and will be for the rest of my life. I cannot avoid it.

I have a hard time buying the Bible's version of things, too. I've read it several times in different translation versions, and I grew up in a protestant household and went to church and Sunday school and bible school and all that ... but I'm an agnostic, at best. I think it's my scientific mind that just won't let go of the fact that certain things don't add up.

[dr.strangelove]

95. Certainly

My initial reaction to christianity is that I am troubled by their steadfast refusal to accept science and that humans who taught about religion in the past may have been wrong. We once thought the earth was only 6000 years old. We now know it is much older. We thought man was only a few thousand years old but human anthropology and archeology has revealed a much older species. if christianity would adopt some of those views it would have abroader appeal. You would find that many people believe in Theistic evolution (that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.)
My own internal searching has taken me beyond mere agnosticism and moved me over to atheism. It certainly was fun talking with you.

[Robeson]

11. I don't "buy" that there was an actual historical "Christ", much less...

...that this supposed person arose from the dead.

[mr blur]

13. Exactly

Absolute nonsense. I guess we're both bound for hell, then, as far as a large part of your population is concerned. And your president, of course. And Mel Gibson.

[opihimoimoi]

15. There is NO EVIDENCE... outside of the Bible, which, BTW, has 3 differing

versions of the same supposed event. The Bibical accounts were written 60 years after the death of Jesus...hardly confirmable.

Read WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN by Merlin Stone.....or,

THE BOOK YOUR CHURCH DOES NOT WANT YOU TO READ.

ENLIGHTENING AND MIND BENDING....

[Az]

20. Actually

The oldest accounts of Jesus (written by Mark) were written 60-70 years after the preported events. The other Gospels were written a good deal after that.

[ladjf]

33. That would make Mark to be about 100 years old when he wrote

his Gospel. And the others, older than that.

[imenja]

38. well I guess I'll state the obvious here

Mark did not write the Gospel of Mark. It was written by someone else who documented Mark's teachings based on his life with Christ. I would imagine most of the apostles were illiterate. Only the most privileged men had access to literacy in those days. So the gospels was based on oral history not committed to writing until 60-70 years after Christ's death. They was thus not unlike the writings of Garcilasco de la Vega and Guaman Poma de Ayalla on the Inca Spanish encounters. Are those works equally worthless in your opinion?

There is a fascinating article you might find instructive in this regard: Patricia Seed, "Failing to Marvel: Atahualpa's Encounter with the Word," _Latin American Research Review_ 26:1 (1991). She examines ways in which various cultures establish their narrative authority and the prejudice in modern Western Society toward acknowledging only eye witness accounts written at the time. If we are to take only these sorts of accounts as legitimate, we disregard all native interpretations of the Conquest. Her point is useful for considering all kinds of historical documentation in pre-modern cultures.

[Schema Thing]

59. Hmmm, I think you skipped about 5 orders of "obvious" magnitude there.

[imenja]

69. such as?

[imenja]

24. so what?

Religion doesn't require evidence. It instead is based, as Soren Kierkegaard notes, based on a leap of faith. Proof has nothing to do with it. It's entirely aside from the point.

[ladjf]

34. "Leap of faith" = fabricated

[imenja]

35. read Kierkegaard before you pass judgment

I gather you've never studied existentialism. Very well. But it's useful to read something before you dismiss it. And if you don't want to read theology or philosophy, and choose to adhere only to materialism, that is fine too. It's entirely your prerogative.
But there is no reason to impose your uninformed intolerance on those who do believe, particularly on a high Christian holiday. I guess good manners and civility are too much to ask these days.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

41. how silly of me

to think such thinkers might merit more than a few trite insults. You obviously are far more informed than those who make up the religion and philosophy departments of the world's university's. Forgive my daring to question your absolute knowledge that "leap of faith = fabricated." Of course I had assumed you hadn't read Kierkegaard. If you had a thoughtful intellectual dispute with him, I would have expected that you might share it. It's hard to imagine that anyone who had bothered to contemplate such ideas would dismiss them so callously. Send out the bulletin that these were "winy disillusioned men." Perhaps you can succeed in getting them pulled from college reading lists and library shelves. Gosh, Sarte and Camus were atheists. Too bad they can't be spared your enlightened disdain.


A little history would also go a long way toward enhancing your view of the role of religion in society. The Civil Rights movement was a Christian movement, formed in black churches across America. Large numbers of slave revolts drew upon religion as a force of ideological empowerment: Nat Turner, the Muslim Revolt of 1835 in Bahia, and countless lesser known Yoruba and Hausa rebellions in Brazil. You could also look to the Hidalgo Rebellion, Tupac Amaru, and the Mayan Caste War. Why should they have drawn upon religion to resist oppression when they might have continued to live under slavery and colonial domination? Religion has served as both a tool of oppression and liberation in human history. To focus on only one of these ignores much of the human experience.

Then there is always this: truth is not limited to that which you believe. People across this world maintain different cultures and beliefs. They do not all submit to your particular view of the world. Some actually maintain beliefs that do not meet your own personal approval. Your beliefs are entirely your business. But when you refuse to respect the beliefs of others, you act will incivility.

Will we also be privy to anti-semitic comments from you during passover? Or anti-Muslim comments during Ramadan and other Muslim holidays. Or is your prejudice limited to Christians alone?

[ladjf]

47. The entire content of each of your posts to me has been solely

to insult my views, to denigrate me personally while trying to buttress your positions by hiding in the cloaks of learned departments of religion and philosophy of Universities around the world. Your weak arguments about the connections between civil rights and religion are ludicrous. The brutal role of the Catholic Church in the history of the New World is well known as is the terrible 800 year reign of terror called the Inquisitions. The Muslims and the Jews are equally criminal with regard to human rights.

I love the human race and would do what ever I could to help it out while still balancing the necessities of providing for my family and myself. I believe that any philosophical system that bases its values on beliefs that can in no way be substantiated is too dangerous to live by. Religious thought flows from the imagination not objective observation. If individuals wish to toy with fallacious
cognitive processes it's their right. Unfortunately, religious adherents are rabid in their desire to impose their dangerous views on all of us. You might find this hard to believe. But, many of us, although in the minority, don't want their religion forced upon us.

[imenja]

51. the only thing I insult is intolerance

I am entirely unconcerned with your personal beliefs. What I am trying to impress upon you is that others believe and have a right to believe something other than what you do.

These weak arguments about the connection between religion and civil rights are not mine. They are entirely standard historical interpretation. I suggest you pick up the phone and call any African-American studies or history department across the country and ask any faculty member what they think on that issue. Who were the leaders in the Civil Rights movement and where were their meetings held? The overwhelming majority of academics are atheists, but they are not so blinded by their own personal beliefs as to deny the historical role of religion in Civil Rights and other liberation movements.

Your comments about the Catholic church are quite accurate. Churches have been the source of great oppression. Religions have also been appropriated as ideologies of liberation. Both are part of human history.

I am happy that you love the human race. I would encourage you, then, to have some understanding of the cultures that make up this world. Religion of one form or another is important in every society on earth. If you love people, you must respect their cultures and faiths. That does not, however, mean you need to share them.

My sense is you are far more rabid in a determination to impose your beliefs on me than I am on you. I have no interest in imposing my beliefs on you. Your views are entirely your choice and your right. I and every other person on this planet has the same right to decide what we believe. Is that really so difficult for you to acknowledge?

[ladjf]

63. Response:

"I am entirely unconcerned with your personal beliefs. What I am trying to impress upon you is that others believe and have a right to believe something other than what you do."

I don't care what others believe. But, the fact is that, in the U.S. the Bush administration was largely empowered by the solid vote of the religious right wing. And it is obvious that the Democratic Govt.
of the U.S. is under siege. The religious right is trying to dictate to me and all the rest of America that we will have to follow their
wishes regardless.

My initial post simply said "Leap of faith = fabrication". Although my response followed the quotes of Kierkegaard, my response was mainly aimed at the right wingers in America who are operating on a faith based system rather than reality. Personally, I haven't ever given Kierkegaard a whole lot of thought in one way or the other. In fact, I'm much more negative about Sartre than Kierkegaard for reasons to lengthy to go into on the bulletin board.

"These weak arguments about the connection between religion and civil rights are not mine. They are entirely standard historical interpretation."

Your style is to side with certain legitimate entities such as philosophy depts, American civil rights leaders, etc. You cite accurate ,positive examples of their influence on human rights. However, in the wide array of historical events, for every good thing that might have been done in affiliation with religion, there is, in my opinion, a much greater number of cases where the religious
component has been disastrous for mankind.


"I suggest you pick up the phone and call any African-American studies or history department across the country and ask any faculty member what they think on that issue. Who were the leaders in the Civil Rights movement and where were their meetings held? The overwhelming majority of academics are atheists, but they are not so blinded by their own personal beliefs as to deny the historical role of religion in Civil Rights and other liberation movements. "

I'm a 69 yr. old man from Mississippi. I'm well aware of the historical role of religion the the American Civil rights movement.
In fact, my father was a courageous, outspoken civil rights leader while M.L.King was still a small boy. I will point out that he made his cases from a secular position rather than sacred.

"Your comments about the Catholic church are quite accurate. Churches have been the source of great oppression. Religions have also been appropriated as ideologies of liberation. Both are part of human history."

But, not equal parts.

"I am happy that you love the human race. I would encourage you, then, to have some understanding of the cultures that make up this world. Religion of one form or another is important in every society on earth. If you love people, you must respect their cultures and faiths. That does not, however, mean you need to share them."

Why do you continue to preach to me?

"My sense is you are far more rabid in a determination to impose your beliefs on me than I am on you. I have no interest in imposing my beliefs on you. Your views are entirely your choice and your right. I and every other person on this planet has the same right to decide what we believe. Is that really so difficult for you to acknowledge?"

My initial comment was five words long. Your insulting response was a full page. Who is the more rabid?

[imenja]

73. my full page comment

was prompted by the fact that I have something to say, that I do not reduce the ideas of any philosopher, even those with which I strongly disagree, to trite five word insults.

As for your charge that I ally myself with universities: Guilty as charged. If you wish to advance the cause of reason and facts, you can hardly condemn education itself. The Right is quite vocal in it's anti-intellectual bias. Must you join the chorus? At any rate, it's entirely inconsistent with your declared admiration of science. Scientific knowledge depends on education and even those pernicious bastions of radicalism and liberalism, universities.

You understandably oppose the Right wing's efforts to use the state to propagate their narrow religious and cultural views. I oppose them every bit as much as you do. But why why do you direct your comments to the Right wing here? Do you think you will find them on DU? And to imagine that condemning Kierkegaard somehow challenges the Right strikes me as odd. Do you imagine that Jerry Falwell and James Dodson have ever read Kierkegaard, Buber, or other Christian existentialists? If they have, I can assure you they deplore them with a venom you haven't begun to express. That would be especially true for Martin Buber, since his work is directed against the fallacies of fundamentalist interpretations of scripture. He deals with problems in translation of the Bible and the fact that literal interpretations miss entirely the meaning of the New Testament.

My full page "insulting response" was an effort to get you to examine your own statements. If you are truly unconcerned with the beliefs on Christians, why is it necessary for you to ridicule their beliefs as "fabrication." That you do not adhere to them yourself does not make them false. I have not in any way insulted your disbelief. I have instead pointed out the problems I see in your insistence on condemning my beliefs and those of billions of people across this planet.

Your point about religion as not resulting in equal parts liberation and oppression may be correct. That sort of thing is difficult to quantify. Here I might point out to you the difference in the teachings of an organized religion, a Church typically aligned with forces of power, and religious beliefs themselves. Christianity, to note just one example, contains much that speaks to liberation and equality. In fact, efforts by slaveholders and others to use Christianity as a source of control was almost always turned on its head by those they sought to oppress. The examples are far too numerous to mention here and they would force you to read an even longer post, which you clearly disdain.

Any other system of thought, including science, can be subject to the same criticism as religion. Science produced racism; it produced mechanized warfare. It resulted in Fordism and Taylorism, empowering empowering capitalists in creating an unskilled and impoverished global labor force. It has produced financial systems that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the majority. It has produced feeding tubes and respirators to keep the bodies of people like Terry Schiavo alive long after God would have taken them. It has also produced medicine that has saved countless lives. If we were to count, I would wager that it's negative consequences are greater than it's positive ones. Such is the paradox of humanity.

[ladjf]

107. You deplore the right wingers yet you share the most

fundemental process of cognition with them. That is, you base you beliefs on unsubtantiated notions.

[imenja]

115. yes, I have faith

or I try to. The overwhelming majority of people on this planet believe in one religion or another. I admire the life of Christ because of what he taught about forgiveness and our responsibility to care for the poorest and least among us. Do you really find that so offensive?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe you said you were male. You abhor the right wingers, yet share the same sex organs with George Bush, Jerry Falwell, and Karl Rove. Shall I denounce you as a result?

[ladjf]

116. Sorry for the break. Got called away by somewhat of an

emergency.

Your last note:

"or I try to. The overwhelming majority of people on this planet believe in one religion or another. I admire the life of Christ because of what he taught about forgiveness and our responsibility to care for the poorest and least among us. Do you really find that so offensive?"

It's a funny thing. You appear to be well read in history and philosophy. You admiration for thinkers such as Sartre and Kierkegaard seems to be immense. You have gone to the trouble to evaluate their writing and take from it what you admire the most. But, my writings, which have been plain, forthright are not even read carefully enough to get even the general gist of what I was trying to say. For instance, how could anyone with half a brain be familiar with the New Testament and find the speeches by Jesus to be offensive? It's offensive to me that after these several posts between us that you could so completely miss my points. I'm not that poor at writing. It's as though you have something in mind and you simply fill that in when describing my opinions. They scarcely relate to anything I've said.

Whether there was a historic Jesus, or his persona is a composite of several evangelist of the period or even if he is no more than a myth based on religious views with new real body ever, his tenets are sound. Why shouldn't they be? They are based upon some of the best thinking from Greece and the orient. I would vote for anyone who truly lives as Jesus taught. You and I know that the current political fiasco in the U.S. bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the lessons taught be Jesus. Religion in the U.S. is a trademark product, nothing more. The closest thing one could find in the Bible to them is Lucifer.

"If I'm not mistaken, I believe you said you were male. You abhor the right wingers, yet share the same sex organs with George Bush, Jerry Falwell, and Karl Rove. Shall I denounce you as a result?
"

I'm sorry. I'm unable to determine the point of your question about gender, Falwell and Rove. You'll have to add more to the question.

Lastly, I wasn't able to finish an earlier post as I was suddenly called away from the computer.

Please read this carefully as I'm only a mediocre writer and I want to convey a rather complex idea.

The Existentialists, and particularly Sartre, as I said earlier are ex-Christians, cynical and disillusioned by what the see in the Church of their day. Yet, despite their anger toward the Church, they make the same cognitive mistakes as the religious scholars. (I know that I've already said that. But, I wanted to lead up to your writings.)
However, the biggest difference between Sartre's beliefs and that of the Church is that Sartre substitutes himself in the role of God, the creator and omnipotent one, although he never has the courage to come right out and admit his narcissistic delusion. You can read a thousand pages written by Sartre and you won't find one shred of evidence that he has acquired any substantial knowledge about anything other than from the depths of his self-imagined wonderful brain. I have never seen the word science nor even seen one example of scientific methodology or even Natural observational deductions in any of his work.

Now, here is why I'm particularly angry about the Existentialists in general. At the point in time that they appeared on the contemporary scene of high philosophy, the world was in need of, and indeed even in waiting for, a new view of the human condition, perhaps free from the bonds of religious dogma. Here were a number of good writers who seemed to have the insight combined with writing skills for whom we had been waiting to take us to the next level. We had reveled in Descartes, Rousseau, Spinoza, Kant, Russell and others. But now, it was time for the newest versions. The world hung on their every word. The were internationally famous, receiving awards and acclaiming that ,in my opinion, they didn't deserve. Why not? Because instead of objectively analyzing the human condition in light of 20th Century context, they rehashed, then bashed Church dogma and proceeded to produce a totally negative, irrelevant, unhelpful mass of cynicism, cloak in circuitous logic, thereby allowing them to confuse the public into believing that they were innovating. They were the Andy Warhol's of philosophy, except not as honest as Mr. Warhol. I am saying that instead of moving philosophy forward, they were a terrible set back to the body of philosophical knowledge. At least the Church as some sound basis with regard to spirituality. The Existentialists seem void of anything positive, not withstanding Kierkegaard, who seem to have some elements of hope.
I wanted the Existentialists to pick up where Spinoza left off and take us to a higher plane of awareness. They fumbled it.

Now today, an obvious scholar such as yourself is armpit deep in their works. I suggest to you that you go back and examine Sartre in particular in light of my criticisms with an open mind that maybe, a fat old man from Mississippi might have made some accurate assessments of weaknesses in some giants of philosophy. (By the way. I admire Sartre's writing skills. That's another matter.)

I first read the Dialogs of Plato as a high school kid. It changed my life. Subsequently, just so you won't think that I have a bad attitude toward education, I say, not to boast but, to inform, I have earned a B.A. Un. of Ms., Master of Music Un of Mich., Ed.D. Un of Mich and a Masters of Social Work from Tulane University. I am retiring next week from my third career and who knows, I might have a fourth. I have made a living as a college professor, a pilot, computer programmer and data analyst.

You have treated my badly. I don't know why I have gone to the trouble to debate with you. I can't say that it has been fun. Yet, somehow, from you remarks, I sensed a passion for the human race that made it difficult for me to ignore. I have guessed that you are
under 30 yrs of age, either a graduate student in a religious seminary somewhere, or perhaps a young faculty member. You might be a man or woman of the "cloth" but I think not. You have either a bachelors or masters in religious history with emphasis on Central and South America. (No one could remember those long Spanish author's names but some one who is either a current student or who has just finished some papers on the subject or an idiot savant (which you aren't)

Well, that's about it for tonight. In the future, please quit treating me dismissively. Primarily, I just another American who is heartsick about the current political situation in this country. It seems that the coup d'etat is all but completed. If we are unable to get a handle on the election fraud tactics by 2008, the coup d'etat will have become a fait accompli.

Good evening.

ladjf

[imenja]

117. the point is this

You use your dislike of the right wingers as a pretext for denouncing all Christians. You accusatively noted that I share some similar thought process with right wingers because I do not denounce religion, because I refuse to limit myself to a consciousness of the material world alone. My reference to male sexual organs was intended to point out to you how ridiculous your comment was. You also share characteristics with right wingers and the same sex organs that have produced patriarchy. Should I blame you for their misdeeds as a result? Of course not. It was not meant to be a sound argument, because yours is not. Any effort to express prejudice at entire groups of people is by essence illegitimate. If the fact that I and the overwhelming majority of the rest of humanity maintain faith prompts you to dislike us because you oppose Right Wing Christians, that is a problem for your own conscience. I have made an effort to get you to examine that position. I can do no more.


That you have never observed science discussed in Sartre's work somehow makes him illegitimate? One could make that point about most works of literature, art, and philosophy. So what? If the only aspects of human existence that matter to you are the material, why are we even having this conversation? We, in this scenario, are but a mere biological shell, so questions of culture, politics, art and history are worthless.

I believe you miss your mark with your assessment of Sartre and the other Existentialists. For one thing, all schools of thought have to be examined in their time frame. To imagine that the Existentialists
should reflect the same concerns Rousseau or Descartes does is unrealistic. There is indeed something profoundly cynical in the work of Camus and Sartre, but their work emerged from a time of horrific war, genocide, and colonialism. Both Sartre and Camus were active in the French resistance. Nazi occupied France bore little resemblance to Enlightenment Europe in which many of your favored philosophers wrote. It is unrealistic to expect its thinkers to contemplate the same questions. Moreover, mid 20th century philosophers did not have the same need to highlight the virtues of scientific thinking, because they lived in a world were science prevailed. The excesses of the applications of science became visible to all with the revelations of the Nazi laboratories and death camps. Hitler's was also a secular ideology, and he employed science to carry out the worst atrocities known to human kind.


The Christian Existentialists do not exhibit the same cynicism evident in the atheistic Existentialists. That is perhaps the peskiest aspect of faith: it offers hope in the fact of despair; it renounces cynicism when most see no other possibility. That is why I conceded that "I try" to have faith. I lack this kind of mental and emotional strength.

It guess it has never occurred to me to evaluate philosophers in the way that you have, in terms of whether they ask the questions I deem relevant without regard to the historical context in which they wrote. All of the men you mention have made enormous intellectual contributions to the modern world. I would never dismiss as fabricators or "whiny men" Western culture's great thinkers because I know very well that their contributions far exceed anything that I will ever do. And I certainly am not going to insist that all worthwhile efforts to explore the human condition ended with the Enlightenment. I would prefer not to keep human kind limited to 18th (or 19th, in the case of Bertrand Russell) concerns.

You evidently see science and religion as inherently contradictory. So did the Inquisition and so do conservative Christian fundamentalists. I, like most progressive Christians including those who are themselves scientists, see no inherent contradiction between the two.

I'm sorry you feel I have treated you badly. You quite abusively insulted my faith and that of all believers. Your insults resulted in your posts being deleted, despite the fact that I never reported them. Your post above does not accurately represent your own statements. One of your deleted posts insisted the Christians were perpetrating a massive, illegitimate scam on the world. You wrote this in response to my post about the importance of Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness. You obviously carry around a great deal of anger toward Christians. Perhaps if I lived in Mississippi I might have similar views. The world of faith, however, is not limited to the conservative Christians who may be your neighbors. It is not limited to the TV preachers who make the cable talk show circuits. My responses were intended to impress upon you that religion is far more than what you envision. I did so through intellectual debate, not insults, despite the example you yourself set.

[imenja]

43. by the way, what facts would those be?

What are the facts that determine others have no right to believe anything other than what you tell them to? What facts have declared you the absolute arbiter of spirituality and culture on the planet, as well as the only person fit to evaluate the works of some of the twentieth-centuries most renowned thinkers?


"You'd better get off your pompous,egotistical ass and start studying the facts."
How fortunate I am than you have corrected my delusions. I stand in awe of your superior knowledge and civility. I await your proclamation of what I can and cannot believe. Perhaps you can share with us some of that scientific and objective thinking--you know, the kind that underlay eugenics and the Holocaust. The science that gave rise to racism?

Should I dismiss science in its essence because it has been used for evil? Because Hitler marshaled it to create a master race? Because it has produced nuclear weapons? Or should I acknowledge than science, like religion, has been used for both good and ill in human history. But why would I want to consider a nuanced view of forms of knowledge and belief when it's so much easier to pass simplistic judgments based on prejudice over reason or "facts." (The fetish of "facts" by the way, is itself a product of positivism--an ideology associated with capitalist exploitation and racism, an ideology that is the foundation for understanding truth in our modern day capitalist society. Of course, we wouldn't want to discuss other "winy disillusioned men" like the post-structuralists. That might run the risk of prompting thought).

[ladjf]

50. Facts:

"What are the facts that determine others have no right to believe anything other than what you tell them to? "

I neither said nor implied that others have only the right to believe what I tell them to believe. You intentionally misrepresented my remarks.



"What facts have declared you the absolute arbiter of spirituality and culture on the planet, as well as the only person fit to evaluate the works of some of the twentieth-centuries most renowned thinkers?"

I neither said nor implied that I alone was fit to evaluate the works of other thinkers.

Why do you keep making up this stuff?

Here's a fact: Your body requires a certain amount of nutrition to sustain your life.

Here's another fact: Within the not to distant future, the sun will
become a "red giant", vastly expanding in size and vaporizing the Earth.

[imenja]

53. oh good

then we are in complete agreement. Except possibly on the "not so distant future," depending on your time reference.

By the way, the Aztecs had a solution for that. Of course, that would fall under the unpleasant category of religion.

[ladjf]

55. Somewhere around 500,000,000 years. In geological terms,

"not too distant future". And when that happens, Sartre, Kierkegaard, you, me and everything else will be gone forever. But,
the rest of the Universe will continue to evolve toward who knows what.

[Az]

19. Similar camp

I maintain there is no evidence he existed. I lean towards the notion that he was a fictional creation of Marks. But I remain open to the possibility that there was a person named Jesus or perhaps a group of people who formed the basis for him.

[Robeson]

22. I think you might enjoy a book called:.....

...."Did Christ Exist?" by G.A. Wells, Professor at Birkbeck College at the University of London. He really disects the whole thing. Last I saw, it was published by Pemberton Press, Canada, but who knows if its even allowed in here anymore. I have several other books which backs up his thesis, if you're interested.

[Az]

23. Own it

There are a number of very good books on the subject.

[Robeson]

25. Then you know.

[RebelOne]

30. Sorry, I'm not a believer and I don't buy it. n/t

[Robeson]

36. I'm not either, in Christ, that is, I assume thats what you were...

...responding to? If so, why apologize to me? I agree. There's no historical proof he existed. Read the posts.

[izzie]

26. Is their a book called.something like. A man with many faces?

I was told to read a book in college (started as a religious college) about that their has been a man like Christ in every society and its history. I have been trying to re-call the title for over a year.If I read it in collage it has to be 40 years old.

[Robeson]

28. No, I've not specifically heard of that book, though the theme is...

...prevelent with many religions, not just Christianity. Rodger Kamenetz, a Jewish Professor and Theologian, has many of those same tenants with respect to Judaism. He's explored links to Judaism and Buddhism, and has written several books regarding the subject. He even had a PBS show on it at one time. Of course, since Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, it has a lot of characteristics of all these ties, so maybe thats where the theme of the book you mentioned was coming from..

[CJCRANE]

32. It might be...

"Hero with a thousand faces" by Joseph Campbell. As I recall, it's a book about the general themes in all mythology.

[_TJ_]

102. I have that book

Good book! Many years since I read it though, must give it
another whirl.

[CJCRANE]

108. Never read it but..

I remember hearing that even George Lucas' Star Wars saga is based on themes in the book.

[_TJ_]

114. That's right

I think it's a myth called 'the hero's journey' or something
similar.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

16. Oh, a Christian-appreciation thread for Easter Week!

[BlondieK143]

42. Yes, I certainly do.

No discussion or debating needed from me. I believe. End of story.

[Midlodemocrat]

66. As do I.

Fully, completely and totally.

[jonnyblitz]

44. of course not. it's absurd. nt

[magnolia]

45. It's all about the message.

It doesn't matter if it really happened. The Christians say it did, the atheists say it didn't...IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's all symbolic. Consider the story about "the little boy who cried wolf". How stupid would it be to argue over whether there really was a little boy or wolf, where or when did it happen. Way back two thousand years ago people didn't understand concepts so philosophy had to be explained in stories.

It's a waste of time and brain energy to argue the details. Instead, look at the meaning. The best source to understand Jesus is "A Course in Miracles". It explains how crucifixion and resurrection are representative of what all of us go through all the time.

"He has risen, and when he rose, he rose in me." Marianne Williamson

Wishing that all of you here at DU experience your own resurrection this Sunday. Let's think resurrection for the Democratic Party and for our country and for the world.

[Donailin]

49. Does anyone here believe in miracles?

that should be the question.

[_TJ_]

99. I don't but I'm open minded

I would believe if I saw one though. I don't say they never
happened though cos what do I know after all. Lot's of stuff
probably happened that would amaze us if we saw it first hand.

[dr.strangelove]

52. Thats the whole point of him being a deity, he physically returned to life

He was not human, but a god. I understand the christian belief to be that his body came back to life, and after a short time here (maybe 40 days, which is a biblical number) he whole physical body left the earth to return to heaven. I don't think the christian belief is very similar to the Frankenstein legend. Its more about a miraculous event performed by a god than human science reanimating dead tissue.

Like many others on this board, I consider myself an atheist. I don;t believe Jesus was a god. There is sufficient evidence of a man named Jesus for me to believe that he existed and walked the earth. I just believe he rose from the dead. I believe he died like the rest of us do.

The Sam Kennison bit was pretty funny. I've seen it many times. I bought those dvds his brother was hocking a few years back and he does the bit at a show on one of the dvds.

[madison2000]

54. His disciple Thomas asked for proof and got it

On Saturday he is in shock. On Sunday he is so disillusioned that he doesn't gather with his fellow disciples for an evening meal. Thomas is dazed, hurt, bitter -- and lashing out. Monday morning, the disciples go looking for Thomas and tell him what has happened in his absence.

"Thomas, we were in that upper room where we'd been meeting. We lock the doors for protection. Yet, all of a sudden, Jesus appears. 'Peace, Shalom,' he says. Then he shows us his hands. There are jagged holes where the nails had been. He pulls back his tunic and shows us where the spear penetrated his chest. But he isn't weak or sick or dying. He is alive, raised from the dead!"

"I don't believe it," barks Thomas. "I don't believe a word of it. You're seeing what you want to see. Jesus is dead. I saw him die, and part of me died with him. But he's dead, and the sooner you accept that fact, the better off you'll be. Give it up!"

Peter pleads with him. "Thomas, I saw him myself, I tell you, and he was as real as you are!"

Thomas is cold, with an edge in his voice that cuts like ice. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

But Thomas's anger cools, and by the next Sunday evening he is eating with his fellow disciples in the same locked room. Suddenly, Jesus stands among them once again and speaks -- "Shalom, peace be with you."

All the blood drains from Thomas' face. Jesus turns to him and speaks plainly, without any hint of rancor or sarcasm, "Put your finger here, see my hands." Jesus holds out his scarred hands for him to examine. Thomas recoils. Not out of fear, really, but from a mixture of amazement and revulsion.

Jesus begins to open his outer garment and says, "Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas is weeping now and then begins to sob out loud. Jesus reaches out and puts a hand on his shoulder. Then Thomas slips to his knees and says in awe, "My Lord and my God!"

Thomas, "Doubting Thomas," as he is sometimes called, is the first disciple to put into words the truth that Jesus is both Lord and God. "Doubting Thomas" utters the greatest confession of faith recorded anywhere in the Bible.

Jesus replies, "Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


http://www.leaderu.com/theology/doubting_thomas.html

[Schema Thing]

56. Yes, Zues Re-animated Him

Everybody knows that.

[BigMcLargehuge]

58. nope

I don't buy it soul or otherwise

[noonwitch]

61. Yes, I believe it

According to the Bible, he ate with the disciples after his resurrection, and let Thomas stick his fingers in the wounds in his hands.

[immoderate]

72. I hope he washed his hands before eating.

"Faith is the capacity to believe something you know is false."

--IMM

[bunkerbuster1]

62. Thomas Jefferson didn't buy it.

Neither do I, and only one of the four Gospels--the one most distant chronologically from actual events, John--has Jesus re-appearing in physical form.

If you've never cased "the Jefferson Bible", you should, BTW. It's basically all the credible, admirable stuff from the Bible about Jesus and none of the walking-on-water crap. And it ends with Jesus' execution and DEATH.

I cannot even imagine a prominent pol today editing such a thing. Not even in secret.

[progressoid]

65. Nope - but Mithra...that's another story

[CO Liberal]

67. I Used To

But now I believe that nothing in the Bible actually happenned.

[Bridget Burke]

68. "John Barleycorn must die"

Gods are born, die & are reborn--it's been happening for millenia.

[China_cat]

70. I just have such a hard time

making Friday afternoon to Sunday morning come out 3 days.

[ImpeachBush]

74. My theory ...

Christ did not die on the cross, but the Romans thought he had passed on. He was removed from the cross and taken to a secluded place where he was attended to. Another body was placed in the crypt, but Jesus' followers decided it was a bad idea, because if the Romans checked on the body, they would realize it was not Christ, and would hunt him down to make sure his death sentence was fullfilled. So they broke into the tomb and took the body and disposed of it, and made up some story about Jesus arising. Christ was weak and very ill from the experience on the cross, and decided he would travel afar to recuperate and hide from his followers, the Romans, the Jews, and the hubbub ... to live out the rest of his days in peace and quiet. He stopped to visit his closest followers and advisors before he began his journey, and told them he was headed to paradise. So, his merry men made up a big story ... to cover up the whole scheme.

Perhaps Jesus' journey took him to some quiet, tropical paradise .. maybe some secluded Greek Isle, where he lived the rest of his life alone and relaxed and happy. Or maybe it was Utah.

[kodi]

75. blasphemer!

[jswordy]

76. Yes, I saw Kinison do that live. And no, I do not believe...

...Christ rose bodily, as Bible literalists do. In fact, until very recently, the Catholic Church was completely against cremation for Catholics, as it says in the Bible we will be risen bodily at Judgment Day, etc.

It is so sad, how what Christ is alleged to have said in the Bible is so completely and utterly misinterpreted. Any true literal reading of his words, minus the church "spin," reveals a much different message than what is advanced by the churches.

[ChickMagic]

80. Was it Kinison

or Bill Hicks that said that Jesus was the only person to come back from the dead that didn't scare the crap out of everybody?

The gospels don't agree on the details of what happened. I sometimes wonder if archeologists were to actually find the bones of Jesus, what would that do to Christianity? That's kind of their cornerstone, isn't it? I have a book called, "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read". It list a number of saviors born of virgins, dying on a cross or tree and resurrecting.

[jswordy]

85. It was Kinison, the former preacher. And...

...on the Gospels, please remember that they were passed down orally for generations before being written down in Hebrew, which was then translated to Greek. Then King James had them rewritten and destroyed many original manuscripts. And don't forget there is a whole slew of stuff that was consciously OMITTED from the Bible by the churches, including the Dead Sea scroll stuff and other tracts that said Jesus married, etc.

There is a mountain of fascinating books about the Bible, about the stuff that got left out, and on what Jesus may actually have said vs. what is in the book. When I read the Bible, I am so struck by the ham-handed way allegiance to the church is inserted into nearly every pronouncement by Christ, as well as the church concept of heaven and hell. Consciously remove that, and the message of Jesus becomes much clearer and more abundant in its power -- and in yours.

[ChickMagic]

90. My hubby studied extensively

on how the Bible was put together. At one point, monks laid all the scrolls on a table. Overnight, God was supposed to throw to the floor the scrolls that shouldn't be included. Sure enough, some of them fell off and they got eliminated.

[jswordy]

92. There were also conscious efforts to eliminate tracts that...

diverged from the supposed message. It is fascinating to read the stuff that survives that was omitted.

There is even an alternate version of what "Jesus died for your sins" means, when taken in the historical context of the customs then and how people spoke.

Basically, to me the heart of Jesus' teachings came to this: YOU HAVE THE POWER. All you need do is believe that. But most don't. They think they have to go to someone else for the power. Hence the rise of politics and religion over spiritualism, and all that that change has wrought (most of it negative).

Further, Jesus was and is not the only teacher of these concepts. There are myriad paths to the One.

[ChickMagic]

101. Absolutely!

Well said. :thumbsup:

[SarahB]

77. To me, the message of what Christ taught was more important.

The way Christ taught people to live and love should be the basis of how Christianity is perceived (along with many other great teachers- Buddha for instance). To concern oneself with the dogma, myths, and legends surrounding it, is missing the point. The point is human kindness to others, not whether he rose from the dead, his mom was a virgin, or whether he ever had sex or not. Hey, that's just my opinion though.

[_TJ_]

96. I agree

I think your opinion is spot on :thumbsup:

[progmom]

78. I do.

Thanks for asking.

[ignatzmouse]

79. Crucify Yourself

Suppose that Jesus was a man who was convinced of his own divinity (I am the Messiah!) to the point of riding triumphantly into town as his followers placed palm branches before him. Suppose there was a movement who believed his statements out of resentment for the Romans and longed for someone to emerge as a triumphant Jewish king and expel the Romans. Suppose that he believed this so fully that even as he was being crucified for his absurd challenge to Rome and was mocked with the "King of the Jews" inscription and crown of thorns that he still believed that God the Father would take him down from the cross and that he would be made the Messiah and prevail. Suppose it didn't happen as he faced the last moments of death. Do you suppose he might cry out wondering why he had been forsaken? Would he cry out such a ungodlike challenge to God if he had entered willingly to his mortality under the foreknowledge that it was some kind of complex metaphysical penance to bridge man's original sin? It is bizarre that he would cry out wondering why he had been forsaken unless he believed that he was to be crowned King in order to lead the Jews to victory.

The real story may then be the crucifixion of the ego with a realization that was expressed "it is done." The lesson learned then is death to self as supreme center and the recognition that all beings are centers. Perhaps this is what happened, a personal transformation and enlightenment rather than something that was assigned after the fact as a martyred act for mankind's salvation by his leaderless followers. If so, perhaps there is a greater message of humility that has been entirely lost...that we all need to crucify that aspect of our egos that seeks reward and domination and be born into a new self of enlightenment, seeing all beings as centers with compassion and identity.

[JimmyJazz]

82. If you seriously have a question for Christians regarding the

ressurection, why don't you pose it in a serious manner? Believe it or not, there is such a thing as a Christian Democrat and some (read: me included) find your slam of our religion extremely offensive.

Posting such flame bait on what is for Christians, the Holiest day of the year, exceeds the bounds of good taste - IMHO.

Edited for clarity

[ImpeachBush]

94. As I see it ...

The question was not posed in an offensive matter. I'm not into religion, per se, although I do TRY to live a good life and have some spirtual leanings. I wasn't the least bit offended by the post and feel that it opened the door to some good discussions in the lounge - a rare feat, indeed.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

86. I don't believe in ridiculing people for HAVING faith

I only believe in reminding them it is THEIR faith and to refrain from cramming it down my throat.

This weekend is a holy weekend for some DU'ers. I grant them that.

[Red State Rebel]

88. Thank you

I only wish more here we as respectful.

[progmom]

93. Thanks, NSMA

:hi:

[_TJ_]

98. A little tolerance

Is what the world needs most.

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. As a Christian, it doesn't matter to me. What I get from the story is

hope. Hope that we always have a chance to start fresh, no matter how bad things are.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm

[leftofthedial]

97. ha ha ha ha ha!

pure, unadulterated crock of shit

made up and manipulated for political purposes

Muffy the Mystery Cat though . . . He is all powerful and all knowing. I know because I read it in a book.

[_TJ_]

103. That is the wrong attitude sir!

There is no need to deride other people's beliefs because you don't
happen to share them.

Lots of people here take this type of thing quite seriously - how about
having a little respect for their feelings?

[leftofthedial]

104. hey pal, I'm a fundamentalist

YOU are going to hell.

Muffy has spoken.

[Chovexani]

105. No, but I'm a Pagan

And this whole holiday was pretty much stolen from us (list most of them). So I guess my opinion doesn't count. :P

JC was a great wise man and teacher. I think he'd be embarrassed by a lot of these cultists that grew up around him.

[WI_DEM]

106. yes, his spirit rose

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

111. Joseph wasn't stoned off his ass

He fell off his donkey.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. Yes

If he was divine, why not?

The physics-biology of it are not important in that case.

[BiggJawn]

118. No.

Don't believe there WAS a "Jesus", either. Where's the Roman record of his trial? Those guys were anal enough to catalogue the number of gladiator sandals on hand, why no mention of Jesus?