He was extremely successful in his outreach.

Is there anyone else who comes close to him in stature?

With 2.42 billion Christian adherents in the world, it is the largest religious group in the world.

Who would've thought an itinerant carpenter could've made such an impact?

Mormonism is just a teensy drop in the proverbial bucket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

Enjoy it while you can!

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/02/397042004/muslim-population-will-surpass-christians-this-century-pew-says


I honestly have no emotional involvement in this issue... Que sera, sera.

Would there be any logic to counting children below a certain age as 'undeclared as to belief'? Thus hyping the number of agnostics?

And China will be the next superpower by 2050.

Not far behind.

Jesus, like all religious leaders, was a philosophical idealist, his teachings are based on ideals. Philosophical realism springs from Aristotle in that the nature of the world is not based on ideals, rather those things that can be observed, measured, counted, categorized.

His teachings were based in idealism. But he was grounded in realism. At least that's how I see him. Maybe he was both. He had the capacity for both.

He took people as they were. As a teacher he let them know what they were capable of becoming. And then loved them into being.

But it came from a center of gravity, at his core, that was grounded in reality.

More likely philosophical pragmatism—knowledge via personal experience. But, I’m going to go with your thoughts because what you’ve got to say is more important than my arm chair philosophy. John Dewey’s Boner.

It's just something that occurred to me, that Jesus was very grounded, and centered. He saw people as a reflection of himself, and they rose to his aspirations for them.

Thanks for your feedback. :)

We're both armchair philosophers. You're probably more pragmatic than moi'.

I believe Jesus' was very pragmatic. Without a formal education, he was full of common sense.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His teachings were based in idealism. But he was
> grounded in realism. At least that's how I see
> him. Maybe he was both. He had the capacity for
> both.
>
> He took people as they were. As a teacher he let
> them know what they were capable of becoming. And
> then loved them into being.
>
> But it came from a center of gravity, at his core,
> that was grounded in reality.

I really like your explanation, Amyjo!

Thanks. :)

Boner, I'm changing one word into two words, and logically, it shouldn't change the meaning, nor the moral impact, if your statement is true:


Joseph Smith, like all religious leaders, was a philosophical idealist, his teachings are based on ideals. Philosophical realism springs from Aristotle in that the nature of the world is not based on ideals, rather those things that can be observed, measured, counted, categorized.




Good ol' Joey, "...was extremely successful in his outreach."

"Is there anyone else who comes close to him in stature?"

"Who would've thought an itinerant (money digger) could've made such an impact?"

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Joseph Smith, like all religious leaders, was a
> philosophical idealist, his teachings are based on
> ideals. Philosophical realism springs from
> Aristotle in that the nature of the world is not
> based on ideals, rather those things that can be
> observed, measured, counted, categorized.
>
>
>
>
> Good ol' Joey, "...was extremely successful in his
> outreach."
>
> "Is there anyone else who comes close to him in
> stature?"
>
> "Who would've thought an itinerant (money digger)
> could've made such an impact?"

All of Joe's grand MORmON Suck-Cess, made possible by operating in the name of Jesus .....by playing the role of replacement Jesus while the original Jesus was NOT available to the masses.
......A point that certain MORmON leaders seem to realize on some intuitive (Freudian) level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wALvdgurB4

"Who would've thought an itinerant carpenter could've made such an impact?"

Well, not just any carpenter. According to Christians anyway. :)

And Jesus traveled to Jerusalem to build a dresser

Exactly right.

Yes. He realized for himself and taught about the innermost reality in all people. People's egos, their conditioned identifications, often felt threatened and resisted, then gymnastically "reinterpreted" and tried to co-opt the message in order to salvage their egocentric and sociocentric beliefs. But that deeper something was stirred in so many, despite their personal overlays, and this continues--both the stirring and the co-opting.

Assuming (and it's a big assumption) there was a "Jesus," he wasn't very successful in his "outreach" at all.

The bible stories tell us that upon his death, his followers were very few in number, and scattered when their leader died.

According to those stories (and to verifiable history afterwards), it wasn't Jesus who built christianity.

It was people who never met him who did -- and much later than his lifetime.

Bart Ehrman's most recently published book is: *The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World*.

I haven't read it yet, but it could be relevant to this thread.

He was extremely good at delegating. Hence, the apostles who followed in his stead. They in turn, delegated. And so on and so forth.

ETA: They were the "real deal." The GA in SLC are counterfeit and white male sharks in business suits.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was extremely good at delegating. Hence, the
> apostles who followed in his stead. They in turn,
> delegated. And so on and so forth.


I won't argue the first sentence, nor the second sentence. Which makes the third sentence a no-brainer to accept. It's the final sentence, your conclusion: "And so on and so forth."

I think it's fair to ask, 'what did Jesus do wrong that allowed what he started, to run so far afoul of what he intended?'

An atheist wouldn't really care, and deists would say "Nuh-uh!" despite being part and parcel of how massively fractured the Jesus religion has become. Of course, each deist does his/her best to please the Jesus whose path he/she believes he/she is following. I have to give credit where credit is due because some deists are willing to die for their version of Jesus.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amyjo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He was extremely good at delegating. Hence, the
> > apostles who followed in his stead. They in
> turn,
> > delegated. And so on and so forth.
>
>
> I won't argue the first sentence, nor the second
> sentence. Which makes the third sentence a
> no-brainer to accept. It's the final sentence,
> your conclusion: "And so on and so forth."
>
> I think it's fair to ask, 'what did Jesus do wrong
> that allowed what he started, to run so far afoul
> of what he intended?'

Did it run so far afoul of what he intended? In the purest sense of religion, his religion remains what he intended it to be. It's still there in the interpretation of scripture.

>
> An atheist wouldn't really care, and deists would
> say "Nuh-uh!" despite being part and parcel of how
> massively fractured the Jesus religion has become.
> Of course, each deist does his/her best to please
> the Jesus whose path he/she believes he/she is
> following. I have to give credit where credit is
> due because some deists are willing to die for
> their version of Jesus.

As bona dea noted, it is theists who are apologists for Jesus, over deists. Not sure Christians are as willing to die for their version of the truth. Yet nearly all the apostles plus Jesus were put to death for their religion by hateful fanatics. Christianity has made more than its fair number of casualties to what it purports to be right. It also has its own hateful fanatics like Martin Luther, and the Crusaders.

One thing they've gotten wrong IMO is the second coming. It's been predicted since the crucifixion as happening soon. If JC has already been resurrected, what's the hurry? He has a universe to run. We're just little dots in a swirling cosmic ocean from the vantage point of who's running the big show. There's no hurry to stop the progress humankind has been making here on planet Earth. Progress is what this planet represents in the big picture to a cosmic deity. Not stopping it in its tracks.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did it run so far afoul of what he intended? In
> the purest sense of religion, his religion remains
> what he intended it to be. It's still there in the
> interpretation of scripture.

Hard to be sure about somebody else's intentions.
But it's pretty plain that "ran so far afoul" is accurate.

The most amazing thing about the 2.4 billion (supposed) "christians" in the world is that they claim to believe in and follow a guy who supposedly said "My kingdom is not of this world," advised them to sell all they have and give it to the poor, told them not to worry about where they'll sleep or what clothes they'll wear, and decried public-praying, rich hypocrites...

And then they belong to multi-billion $ churches with grandiose cathedrals/churches, think they're "blessed" when they make money, and ignore darn near everything their beloved Jesus supposedly said.

That so many can so easily live in the midst of such hypocrisy amazes the heck out of me.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amyjo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Did it run so far afoul of what he intended? In
> > the purest sense of religion, his religion
> remains
> > what he intended it to be. It's still there in
> the
> > interpretation of scripture.
>
> Hard to be sure about somebody else's intentions.
> But it's pretty plain that "ran so far afoul" is
> accurate.
>
> The most amazing thing about the 2.4 billion
> (supposed) "christians" in the world is that they
> claim to believe in and follow a guy who
> supposedly said "My kingdom is not of this world,"
> advised them to sell all they have and give it to
> the poor, told them not to worry about where
> they'll sleep or what clothes they'll wear,

....hmmm, does NOT sound like much of a realist (!!!!!!)


Of Course, shortly after Jesus completed His mortal mission, He left behind this (filthy, miserable) world to be some place else. That would be a very good (realistic) move .......for those who have the option!!!!! (tough luck for those left behind !!!)

See, this is the problem I've had with RfM since forever. The non-believers/atheists here make a lot of sense. Their questions are often the same as I've asked myself too. The wealth and cathedrals and rules and the judgement and all that goes into the whole thing would make you wonder, would it not, which scriptures are some of these people reading?

I've never fitted in. I can't help but ask a lot of questions. Many folks don't like that. But there often seems to be a disconnect between what the scriptures say, freely chosen to be followed by the groups themselves, and what they believe and do.

Nobody likes to take you to the dance if you can't do the steps right.

I have gone anyway but too often end up sitting in a corner, tapping my toes but not invited to dance.

I've hoped that at least God will understand me. I've even told him often: I am how you made me. (If we are to believe the scriptures). So is it 100% my fault how I think and what I choose to believe and do in terms of religion? But I've sure been ostracized by a lot of his people. And seriously, I'm not all that wicked. Just more of a non-conformist, despite appearances and life history.

From day 1 here I have not been bugged by the questions atheists ask, the choices they make or their expressions of disbelief. Are the questions uncomfortable? Yeah. Can be. But to me they are honest. I have never understood why that makes some people angry.

I know a lot of scriptures. But I'm not really the one to respond to the tough challenges. I enjoy (most of) the exchanges though.

Nightingale, I certainly don't have anything close to "all the answers." And I'll never claim to.

But people who get angry for asking questions...they're not people I want to be around. Same for people who make up answers when the honest answer is "I don't know." And then pretend what they make up is "true."

Is there a god-thing somewhere? Got me. Many of the ones people claim exist are so easily dis-provable it's almost funny. Several others aren't dis-provable, but as there's no evidence they DO exist, I don't see any reason to believe they do -- let alone spend my life 'worshiping' them (especially when you realize that an all-powerful/all-knowing being would consider 'worship' rather silly, unless it were a narcissistic egomaniac, and why would anyone worship a thing like that?).

I like things we can learn and demonstrate to exist and/or be "true." Digging through evidence, connecting widespread dots, the thrill of the chase for facts -- it's my 'religious experience.' It makes me happy, a bit woozy, and I get warm tingly feelings all over. That never happened when I prayed to know if the BoM was true. Or for anything in religion.

Could it be that my evolved brain is simply wired differently than many other people, and that I'm not physically/mentally capable of the kind of myth-induced ecstasy they are? Sure. Could they be right, and there is a god-thing somewhere? Sure.

I just don't see any reason to believe they're right until there's some evidence they are. And there isn't any :)

Do what works for you. Allow me to do the same. When/if we meet up, let's drink and laugh and hug, and celebrate life and humanity. It's all good.

>>In the purest sense of religion, his religion remains what he intended it to be.

His teachings, maybe. But the movement that he started was never intended for a gentile audience. It was meant to enact changes in Judaism. Paul and the apostles took the message to the gentiles. Most Jews were not interested due to teachings of the Christians that were considered heretical (that Jesus rose from the dead, and even more so, that he was considered to be God.)

Also, the fact that Jesus was executed by the Romans would have made him ineligible (in Jewish eyes) to be the promised Messiah. There were a lot of would-be Messiahs at the time, and although Jesus had a solid reputation as a healer, so did others. Other than the heresies that Jesus's disciples were teaching, there would have been nothing about Jesus that stood out to the Jewish people. I'm going to guess that John the Baptist was probably better known and had a larger following at the time of Jesus's death. John the Baptist is viewed by Christians as only a supporting player in Jesus's story, but he was much more than that at the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2018 09:50AM by summer.

If JC was the "real deal," he came for all humanity. Non-Jews are considered grafted in, in Christian theology. Some have taken it to the extreme by calling Christianity "Replacement theology." That isn't what he was about either. He didn't replace anything.

He was inclusive. His message was charity and compassion for all. If anyone epitomized humility and pure love, it was him. He was asked what is pure religion? His answer was simply to help the less fortunate, heal the sick, visit the prisoners, and give aid to widows, orphans, and fatherless.

When he said in his father's house are many mansions, he wasn't singling out any one group - his grace was sufficient for all, non-Jews or Jews.

To the Jew he isn't seen as the promised Messiah. They don't share the same plan of salvation Christians do. They have no need of one. They do share the same monotheistic god of the bible. Since Jesus was a man, he cannot be a god - to worship him represents idolatry.

His primary teachings were from Psalms and Proverbs. Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes come directly from the teachings of the OT and King David.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2018 02:39PM by Amyjo.

I don't think he was inclusive at all. His mission was to the Jews. He healed gentiles only on occasion and only with reluctance.

You could make the case that his teachings have a much broader appeal, and I would agree with that.

If you reflect back on his healings and ministry, he taught and healed whoever was within his sphere of influence. That he was born a Jew, lived as one and among them, was his main contact with people. His sphere of influence grew exponentially after his death, because his teachings were universal. You have to consider if he had a divine calling to be who he was, it was part of the plan for his ministry that it evolved and branched out to the gentile world.

You offer three arguments.

First, that Jesus was himself universalist. The gospels offer little evidence for that.

Second, that he was universalist because Christianity later became universal. That is not persuasive either because we know that Paul and others radically transformed the message. It is reasoning backwards, from later Christianity to Jesus.

Third, that from the start God intended for Jesus's message to expand and become universal. That argument is a "winner" in the sense that it can't be rejected; it puts everything in an indisputable divine plan.

But that winning argument doesn't really depend on Jesus's character, since God could have transformed a parochial teacher's vision into anything he wanted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 04:41AM by Lot's Wife.

Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes are absolutely universalist in their focus. Those were/are the highlights of his teachings.

You can't say they weren't universal unless they are taken out of context. No matter how many religions in the name of Christianity have spun off since his life and ministry, those have remained intact.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't say they weren't universal unless they
> are taken out of context.

You can, however, take the Jesus character's own words into account, that he wasn't "universal" (nor were his teachings)...

See below.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was inclusive.

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matt. 15:24

Question: "Why did Jesus say that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24)?"

Answer: Jesus was in the area of Tyre and Sidon, a coastal region in extreme northeastern Galilee (Matthew 15:21) when a Canaanite woman came to Him with a request to heal her demon-possessed daughter. For a while, Jesus did not respond to the woman’s entreaties, and she followed Him and continued to beg for mercy. Finally, the disciples, feeling that the woman was a nuisance, asked Jesus to send her away. Then Jesus said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

We should understand Jesus’ words here not as an outright rejection of the Gentiles—moments later, He heals the woman’s daughter (Matthew 15:28)—but as a fulfillment of prophecy, a setting of priorities, and a test of the woman’s faith.

In Jeremiah 50:6, God calls Israel His people and “lost sheep.” The Messiah, spoken of throughout the Old Testament, was seen as the one who would gather these “lost sheep” (Ezekiel 34:23-24; Micah 5:4-5). When Jesus presented Himself as a shepherd to Israel, He was claiming to be the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy (Mark 6:34, 14:27; John 10:11-16; see also Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 5:4; and Revelation 7:17).

Jesus’ words to the Canaanite woman also show an awareness of Israel’s place in God’s plan of salvation. God revealed through Moses that the children of Israel were “a holy people to the LORD . . . chosen . . . a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6). It was through the Jews that God issued His Law, preserved His Word, and sent His Son. This is why, elsewhere, Jesus tells a Samaritan that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). In Matthew 15, when the Jewish Messiah says that He was sent to “the house of Israel,” He is simply connecting His presence with God’s purpose in Old Testament history. Christ was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Galatians 4:4-5).

https://www.gotquestions.org/lost-sheep-Israel.html

I'm not very impressed by post-hoc fallacious reasoning by apologists who try to make excuses for the blatant contradictions in the supposed "Jesus teachings."

You can be if you want to. I'm not.

Suit yourself.

To understand scripture it helps to understand the context it was intended.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 10:04AM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Suit yourself.
>
> To understand scripture it helps to understand the
> context it was intended.

Not agreeing with post-hoc apologetics does not mean not understanding the context.

Both the context of the verse I offered and the rest of the Jesus stories make it clear that the Jesus character is only interested in giving his teachings to Jews. There is nothing explicitly or implicitly "inclusive" anywhere. Including the Sermon on the Mount (given to Jews only).

The apologist explanation you pointed to is doing much the same thing you've been doing: taking post-Jesus theology as spread by Paul and the powerful churches since, and trying to make it fit the gospel Jesus character after the fact.

As Lot's Wife, I, and others have pointed out -- that's neither accurate, supportable, nor reasonable. It is, however, the kind of fallacious stuff "believers" love to engage in so they don't have to actually address contradictions in their beliefs.

To really understand the written context isn't done by taking one liners out of context. You failed to prove your point by ignoring the context in which those words were written.

The bible, like life, isn't cut and dried, or black and white. You can pick and choose what you want to believe. It doesn't diminish the written word because you use selective reasoning.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To really understand the written context isn't
> done by taking one liners out of context. You
> failed to prove your point by ignoring the context
> in which those words were written.

Once again, not agreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand the context.

Look at (much later) Acts. In the story, Peter -- despite having spent arguable more intimate time with the Jesus character than anyone -- didn't think the Jesus message was "inclusive." He was completely against taking the message to non-Jews. It took Paul's arguments (and a post-Jesus teachings "vision") to get him to be "inclusive." Nothing in anything Jesus said that Peter ever heard made him think the message was "inclusive."

Your argument (and that of the apologists) is that because later christianity developed into being "inclusive," that must be what Jesus meant in the first place. Despite all the indications that's NOT what was meant.

That's the post-hoc fallacy. Plain as day.

> You can pick and choose what you
> want to believe.

I choose not to "believe" anything. I go by facts, and don't make post-hoc excuses.

> It doesn't diminish the written
> word because you use selective reasoning.

Sorry, but the only "selective reasoning" here isn't from me. Pot, meet kettle.

Ghengis Khan


Maybe having more of your very secular 'seed' spread about the world than any other 'leader' is probably not high on the religious hit list as an accomplishment, but it's something that's easy to calculate. He beats the crap out of Jesus in that regard.

We have to talk about what is, not what might have been, but it is certainly a defensible proposition that Ghengis Khan was a much greater 'Realist' (a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly) during his life than Jesus was.

The fact that Constantine was moved by the spirit to hold the Nicene Council is basically the one step that made Jesus Christ relevant today. As a ghawd, Jesus wasn't much of a man, comparatively speaking...

And Alexander is a close second.

Had he lived, yeah, he would have rivaled Ghengis.

Of course, deists say that things turned out the way they did because: Jesus.

Actually deist isnt the same as theist. Deists believe in a God who started things and then backed out and takes no part in the world. Theists generally believe in a more active God. Neither necessarily believe in Jesus or are Christian.They can be, of course, but the term includes any believer in a God and thanis bigger than the Christian God

I stand (sitting in my recliner) corrected. It is an important distinction. Thanks for the heads up, Ms. Bona Dea.

lol

Cousin Max Born was a deist, according to his son. He was the one who coined the quote, "If God has made the world a perfect mechanism, He has at least conceded so much to our imperfect intellect that in order to predict little parts of it, we need not solve innumerable differential equations, but can use dice with fair success."

Einstein would say God does not play dice with the universe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2018 11:10PM by Amyjo.

I have a soft spot for the term deolater to parallel idolater. Thank you Neal Stephenson.

My heavens! 900 pages, with math equations!!! Did you read the whole thing?! Would a wooly-headed mammoth like me get through it?

900 pages - maybe

But math would kill me.

Ms. Nightingale, I recently, and quite by accident, stumbled across some 2006 & 2007 musings you posted on another 'not-so-pure-mormonism' site, where you defended RfM. I think you hide your light under a bushel too much. I've only got a small lantern, but I swing it around as if I were a light-house, which I am most definitely not.

Do you know to which Stephenson novel Dogblogger was referring?

Anathem. It's quite understandable. The tricky part for people is that Stepenson's style is one of digression, he explores his tangents somewhat. And his endings can be abrupt. Anathem is the smoothest and my favorite of his works, probably his best writing.

I read an extensive review of the novel after being led to it by my search for 'deolator' and am intrigued. My problem is that I don't mind 'thinking', but I do mind being pushed to think. I like to sneak up on knowledge...

But if Ms. Nightingale will try it, I will, too.

EOD: I don't remember what I said about RfM. Was I really around that long ago?

Re the book:

> But if Ms. Nightingale will try it, I will, too.


Will you give it to me? I will. At the veil.

Or something like that.


I hope they don't charge for the book by the page.

Will you return and report? So will I. Can't promise when. Can I even lift 900 pages?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2018 08:11PM by Nightingale.

It's on then!

Any others want to jump on the "Anathem" bandwagon?

I'd question whether Jesus was the primary creator of Christianity.

There isn't a lot of evidence about Jesus. There would have been dozens of people with that name in Palestine in that day, so it doesn't make sense to say there was no such man. There were probably even several rabbis named Jesus and some holy men. But whether the Jesus of the Bible was a single person, or a single person around whom beliefs grew through accretion, or a conglomeration of people and beliefs is not really clear.

Nor is it perfectly clear that Jesus set up a quorum of apostles (the word could also be read as "disciples") or established a succession mechanism. He certainly did not leave a corpus of beliefs or an authoritative procedure for compiling such. The canonization of the four gospels, as opposed to the scores of other gospels in circulation, was the work of later religious and political leaders. That there was a religion that Jesus "organized" is therefore largely the result of reasoning backward from some later date.

By contrast, Paul's role in defining the incipient religion and spreading it is well-recognized. There were others--the early church fathers--who played very significant roles in the emergence and development of what we see as Christianity, but none of them really rise to Paul's stature.

To put the point more provocatively, one can imagine the historical Christianity without a single rabbi named "Jesus" but not without Paul. Paul is the closest thing there is to a creator of the religion.

Paul was a Roman citizen. I wonder if he had backers paying him to do the job. Christianity became the religion of Rome. It seemed to emerge from the Roman Empire.

We know the BoM is Bible fan fiction. Maybe the New Testament is Torah fan fiction.

There is an organizational parallel with Mormonism.

Jesus was a radical teacher, one of many, as was Joseph Smith. Jesus was probably much poorer in relative terms, and less literate, which was a handicap in the sense of his not being able to create a strong and coherent religion; but an advantage insofar as there was less to constrain the people who came later and defined his legacy. But both were charismatic creators, intentionally.

Brigham Young is the one who propagated Mormonism, also the one who canonized polygamy and some other elements of Smith's fecund creativity. Paul played a similar role in codifying and spreading Christianity.

Without Young and Paul, neither religion would have become anywhere near as significant as it in fact did. Which is, parenthetically and inadvertently, to imply that Mormonism is comparable in importance to Christianity--which is of course incorrect.

Was Mickey Mouse a realist ?

Was he extremely successful? How many people knew of him and his teachings at his death? Christianity was not spread by Jesus, it was spread by Paul and ten others over centuries.

Was he a "realist"? yes he spent much time in discussion with the Sadducee and pharisees. He was very open to discussing politically taboo subjects, such as marriage rights, divorce, lust, sex, cannibalism, and offending special snowflakes, and men in high places.

He was using his intelligence to reason with people so of course would have been on the far right, What we may call an unaffiliated politician or perhaps even libertarian.

He saw men as basically bad and inclined to be perverts in need of divine grace. so yes he was a realist.

anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...he spent much time in
> discussion with the Sadducee and pharisees.

Yes, this is called Jewish argument (as in: intellectual debate) and it is a universal characteristic of Jewish life and culture.


> He was very open to discussing politically taboo
> subjects, such as marriage rights, divorce, lust,
> sex...

Yes, these are all major parts of the Jewish "written" AND the Jewish "oral" law. These subjects were not, and are not now, "[politically] taboo," they are the main subjects of huge sections of Jewish law. Men who are able to (in today's world, means: their wives have jobs which financially support the family) spend a major part of their waking hours EVERY DAY studying these subjects and "arguing" ["debating"] them in yeshivot (institutions which are devoted to this kind of study), both formal and informal. Right now, it is almost midnight on the U.S. East Coast, and it is almost 7:00 AM in Israel, and there are literally thousands of male Jews worldwide who are arguing these subjects as I type these words.


> cannibalism

This is a complicated subject in Judaism, because if it does not involve murder (a plane crashes in a far distant jungle and only SOME of those on board survive, and there is no other food available), cannibalism of already-dead people is allowed if it is necessary to save life. There is a sort of settled Jewish argument ["debate"] about this which says that preserving the life of those who are still alive is the main priority.


> and offending special
> snowflakes, and men in high places.

This makes no sense in a Jewish context.


> He was using his intelligence to reason with
> people so of course would have been on the far
> right, What we may call an unaffiliated politician
> or perhaps even libertarian.

This is total nonsense from a Jewish standpoint. The priority in Judaism is proactively repairing the world [making the world a better place in whatever ways are possible], and proactively helping all peoples and all animals who are in need of help or support (with the last of your bread and your water, if this is the situation you are in). From my knowledge, this doesn't sound very "far right" OR "libertarian" in philosophy.


> He saw men as basically bad and inclined to be
> perverts in need of divine grace.

Nonsense. What you have said here has nothing to do with Jewish culture, Jewish learning, or Jewish life.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 12:05AM by Tevai.

Gee, for conversations allegedly recounted at multiple removes from the source and written anonymously decades later, you sure trust exact words of the gospel disproportionately to the source quality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2018 05:45PM by dogblogger.

Jesus was, indeed, one of the most profoundly influential fictional characters of all time. The Buddha (a real person) influenced over a billion living people, and Muhammad (a real person) has over one billion followers through the Koran and Hadith.

Too bad that reason, logic, and science (which produce actual truths about reality) are so slow in progressing into the masses. Education is a young discipline... give it time.

But, then again, who said that "Numbers of Followers" has anything to do with what is true? It is always "inferred" but never validated.

HH =)

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But, then again, who said that "Numbers of
> Followers" has anything to do with what is true?
> It is always "inferred" but never validated.

...or anything to do with what is valuable, useful, etc.?

:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

How many versions of Jesus' 'reality' are there?

Haven't there been wars fought over whose interpretation of Jesus' reality was correct? BIG honking wars! How many crusades? All those '30 years war' conflicts...

"Jesus lit a fuse!" makes more sense that "Jesus was a Realist."

and at the last supper Jesus farted is about as

real as the rest of the crap about a fictional man supposedly

the son of fictional god.

so it's not was jesus christ a realist, its was jesus christ

real. Proof anyone? sightings? witnesses?

nope

The pure love of Christ is as real as it gets. Love is the highest law. That is what he taught and how he lived. And that can never die.

You maybe missed the parts where Jesus taught to love him or else die.

Step back and see if "being saved" is really a reflection of real love.

That's a distortion the Romans put on early Christianity after it became hijacked. It wasn't the message Christ taught. Christ taught straight up from the Torah and Tanakh in his beliefs. He was about empowering and blessing, not diminishing others. The people he ripped were the pharisees and self-righteous hypocrites. He didn't come to save the well, but to bind up the broken-hearted and heal the sick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 09:21AM by Amyjo.

That is unless you are a non Jew asking for help and then he compares you to a dog asking for a dinner scrap. When you kiss his Nazarine ass and buy into his bullshit then, and only then he helps . What a guy.

That's funny. More people believe in him who aren't Jewish, than are.

:)

OK For the millionth time Jesus probably never existed and its a story. A Big Myth full of contradictions , some good stuff and some utter nonsense

Historically speaking, Jesus probably did live. The Jesus' life and parables isn't a myth, unlike the Mormon one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 10:50AM by Amyjo.

Not one tiny bit of evidence an historical record .Just storie written years after his alleged death and Paul seeing him in a dream . That is not evidence . Belief not factual or evidentiary at all. OK let's say the New TTestement is true . What did Jesus say or do that is all that fantastic , earth shattering or enlightening anyway ?

There's a lot of factual history that accompanied the life of Christ. His followers, his apostles. His oral teachings that were converted to written text by his apostles following his death.

Scholars and historians don't discount he lived. It's more likely than not that he did. The historical places and references are physically present to this day. Where he was born, lived and died are still intact in Israel.

Every town, street and quarter that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle referenced in his Sherlock Holmes novels were actual places, yet there was never a private detective named Sherlock Holmes in late nineteenth century London. Try again. The BoM references Jerusalem and Egypt, so I guess it's true as well.

You're comparing fictional literature to the bible is like comparing the Diary of Anne Frank to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Disingenuous at best. Flawed to say the least.

Note that Jesus had more in common with Anne Frank however.

They both existed. They both were murdered for having lived.

And they both died as martyrs for a cause larger than themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 11:25AM by Amyjo.

We have photos of Anne Frank. Please post your photos of Jesus.

Even you are literate enough to know that there are no photos for Christ's dispensation. There is geographical and archeological evidence however, and documented history.

Holocaust deniers proclaim Anne Frank didn't live, and the diary was made up.

There are those who try to distort history, despite proof to the contrary.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2018 11:29AM by Amyjo.

"Even you are literate enough to know that there are no photos for Christ's dispensation."

Well, then how about a painting or a sculpture from the time he was alive?

"There is geographical and archeological evidence however, and documented history."

Um. Nope.

Why don't you study more?

National Geographic has done a historical outlay of his life and times. That's good for starters.

Instead of lampooning what you don't know, educate yourself.