As an agnostic believer in God/Gods I have studied/tried on many different religious beliefs. Christianity being the first;
raised forced Baptist. When I came back to the belief in a God/Gods, I studied the story of Jesus out of the bible. I formed an opinion. I can't say that I agree with the idea that Jesus was a God. A son of a God yes, we all are if you believe in God/Gods, I can live with that.
It seems to me the sacrifice Jesus made was more substantial than if he were a God. I think the story was twisted to start a new religion. I mean really you are going to trust a murderer of Christians to teach you right from wrong. That biblical fact I remember disturbing me as young as 11/12 years old.
Do you need to believe in Jesus to believe in God, no I don't think so. I don't believe Mary was a virgin. A woman can have intercourse 5-6 times before a hymen is removed. Joseph could have been a short short man. lol
I think Christians cling to religion because that religion promises a second coming. A way to avoid death. That's not really fair to all the previous generations now is it. There is a lot to learn by accepting our mortality. A deeper appreciation of life and maybe then each other.
It's maddening to me if this story of Jesus is true that any one that Loves Jesus would participate in a religious practice. I think that's the most dishonorable way to appreciate his sacrifice.
I think for a man to believe that his bad behavior was "bought and paid for" by someone else is a self-centered fool. I think the focus should be on the life not the death of Jesus. To me his life was about non-religion being better than a world with religion and he gave his life up to prove it. No religion does not mean NO God/Gods.
Please Christians if I'm wrong enlighten me.
Please tell Traveler and Betelnut the name of the gel is Vol-ta-ren. I hyphenated because I'm trying everything to get this info posted. Thanks.
I will answer some things, as I know Christianity better than any Christian who could answer, anyway.
It seems to me the sacrifice Jesus made was more substantial than if he were a God.
Moral substantiveness is not the issue. Jesus was a pure cold-pressed virgin lamb. Only a God could be pure enough to die and erase our sins. After his death, he then underwent undocumented things for 3 days. A human couldn't do that. Another way of looking at it, is that Jesus, being free of sin, except for when he said he was not good, was going to live for infinity years. Remember he had the spell of regeneration, which he could cast at any time on himself, or an Orc of less than warrior class. His death was hence, an infinite sacrifice, because he still had that card face down on the table, and no other player had the "Obtain Spell" artifact.
I mean really you are going to trust a murderer of Christians to teach you right from wrong.
I'm not following you here, unless you are talking about Paul. He seems to have admitted to murdering Christians, or is at least reputed to have, since it makes more poetic sense.
Do you need to believe in Jesus to believe in God, no I don't think so.
Occam's Razor is not needed at this point. It's not a matter of optimizing the religion for personal taste. Jesus simply had to be a God, even though he said he wasn't, when he said he wasn't good.
I don't believe Mary was a virgin. A woman can have intercourse 5-6 times before a hymen is removed. Joseph could have been a short short man. lol
Matthew spotted that it would have fulfilled the Immanuel prophecy (if you were on drugs) in some boring part of Isaiah. Since it was a prophecy, Jesus must have fulfilled it, somehow. The prophecy refers to a young woman, who got pregnant. Since it would be a sin for a young woman to get pregnant without a husband, her husband must have been God. She couldn't have had sex with a rapist, or passer-by, because she bore Jesus Christ, who could not have been born from a rapist, because he would not be of the house of David (or the Rod of Jessie)., unless that rapist happened to be coincidently from the house of David.
It all falls out in the logic - except the part about how a virgin can have someone from the house of David. Therefore Mary must have been from the house of David, and we briefly switch to a matriarch model. In which case, she could have been raped, and still passed on the house of David.
I think Christians cling to religion because that religion promises a second coming.
That's more or less true. Without the second coming, they would be Jews, and there is no point to being a Jew, as evidenced by there being no Jews.
That's not really fair to all the previous generations now is it.
Fairness is not an issue. God can do what he likes. Since I benefit fro the rule changes, I can be OK with that. It's like a new lenient tax law, or the parable of the vineyard workers. If you were OK with things prior to Jesus, then you were perfectly free to opt out.
There is a lot to learn by accepting our mortality.
Most Christians do accept their mortality, because they have little faith that there is life after death, or that they have obtained their free pass.
In the case that they don't accept their mortality, then they can make up some other reason why they are really special and should be saved.
I think for a man to believe that his bad behavior was "bought and paid for" by someone else is a self-centered fool.
They don't believe that. They only half believe that. You are saved by Grace, if you do good works as well. It's a free gift, that you have to pay for, by being a slave of God. You naturally want to be a slave of God, because you have been saved from hell. Though, Paul doesn't mention hell.http://www.pilkingtonandsons.com/hellfactor/art_paulsteachingonhell.htm
A deeper appreciation of life and maybe then each other.
Christians can gain a deeper appreciation of life by having a wild sex and drugs phase, prior to becoming delusional sanctimonious narcissists.
To me his life was about non-religion being better than a world with religion and he gave his life up to prove it.
Jesus only APPEARS to condemn organised religion, because he was superior to all of it. Being a revolutionary, he could not condone anything that wasn't invented by him. It's OK for the church to accumulate wealth, because it acts as a home for monks, who can be without money, without having to do any real work, or take any risks.
That about wraps it up.