RE: Who was Jesus?
August 18, 2021 at 4:44 pm
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2021 at 4:55 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Is it? What's blasphemous about deeply considering a theological narrative on it's own merits, without the extraneous and useless assumption that it describes the life of some meat bag in the levant?
I've always wondered why the religious think that they are the ones who take their myths seriously, when that's manifestly not the case. They approach myth as a child, with the understanding of a child, for better and, I think......significantly worse.
It's a bunch of true ghost stories, they say, risking the truth of the narrative message on the altar of their own incompetence and small mindedness. I wonder why christianity as a message or worldview would be even remotely valuable if it truly were premised on whether or not a child prodigy embarrassed jewish wizards in mere reality.
The true test of belief in the religious articles, is whether a person - discovering it was all a myth, would still assert the tangibles. Still believe that this was the right and proper way to live a life - because if that much is arguable based on whether or not a specific carpenter's son was ever born...well, friend, it was never true and no one believed those things on their own merits to begin with. They thought a scary an intimidating and powerful man said as much, and no more. That's all there ever was to the worldview.
Do you think that's the case? Does it seem to you that this is the nature of christian belief? Absent a miracle child, the whole thing is kaput? We know that people, historically and contemporaneously, explain their beliefs through stories. We know that people embellish even the truest of events. We know that men wrote the claims in magic book. What, exactly, is arguable here..and more importantly, what does a person who believes in a christian worldview lose by not having those doomed arguments? Are they blasphemous, truly? Who imperils the christian message and belief more? Are you yourself the right shade of lipstick for straightforward christendom, or do you feel as though your own well considered beliefs about the lack of necessity in literal interpretation is the blasphemous set of belief?
I've always wondered why the religious think that they are the ones who take their myths seriously, when that's manifestly not the case. They approach myth as a child, with the understanding of a child, for better and, I think......significantly worse.
It's a bunch of true ghost stories, they say, risking the truth of the narrative message on the altar of their own incompetence and small mindedness. I wonder why christianity as a message or worldview would be even remotely valuable if it truly were premised on whether or not a child prodigy embarrassed jewish wizards in mere reality.
The true test of belief in the religious articles, is whether a person - discovering it was all a myth, would still assert the tangibles. Still believe that this was the right and proper way to live a life - because if that much is arguable based on whether or not a specific carpenter's son was ever born...well, friend, it was never true and no one believed those things on their own merits to begin with. They thought a scary an intimidating and powerful man said as much, and no more. That's all there ever was to the worldview.
Do you think that's the case? Does it seem to you that this is the nature of christian belief? Absent a miracle child, the whole thing is kaput? We know that people, historically and contemporaneously, explain their beliefs through stories. We know that people embellish even the truest of events. We know that men wrote the claims in magic book. What, exactly, is arguable here..and more importantly, what does a person who believes in a christian worldview lose by not having those doomed arguments? Are they blasphemous, truly? Who imperils the christian message and belief more? Are you yourself the right shade of lipstick for straightforward christendom, or do you feel as though your own well considered beliefs about the lack of necessity in literal interpretation is the blasphemous set of belief?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
