Christ

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

so i was reading some dharma yesterday, and they talked about attachment, and then i was talking to my mad jesus buddy thomas, bitching that their was not that sense of loss, of giving it all up, of being empty from worldly desires by liking the big jc- he refuted me quite well.

and then we discussed my biggest problem with christianity, the exculsivity, in my heart i have trouble, am pained, with the evanglical aspect of Christs teachings- i want it to be personal, i want to discard the one true truth thing, and thats impossible. so anyways, talk about jesus here.

― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:13 (twenty-three years ago)

there is plenty of ascetic doctrine in the bible, though it's not quite as emphasized or involved as Buddhism.

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world " (1 John 2:15) "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:24-25).

And the 'one truth thing' may offend your sensibilities, but is it necessarily bad or wrong?

― Aaron A., Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:34 (twenty-three years ago)

well i dont know, i mean a billion hindus cant be wrong can they ? (faectius answer- honest answer- i dont trust idelouges, it worries me)

― anthony easton (anthony), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Seriously, I scorn Christianity as much as any religion. But if you try to investigate what the Jesus of the gospels is getting at, which involves sidestepping the propagandist nature of those gospels, it's all about imagination and doubt. There is no "one true truth thing". God is in the head.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, it is "necessarily bad" and "wrong".

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Go on!

― Aaron A,, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 01:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Um, if you need me to list the bad, you haven't paid much attention to human history (why's this thing called the INQUISITION anyway, Mom?!?!?!?!) Name the good things that have resulted in such an aggressive vision of one's own righteousness (hint: there are no GOOD things that result from this sort of thing--it always results in persecution and oppression.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 01:20 (twenty-three years ago)

While there's still time, I wanna make it clear that my post above isn't suggesting that there's some kind of 'True Christianity' which 2000 years of bureaucracy has distorted. That would be like the dipshit muslims who claim that Islam isn't really a mysoginist philosophy when you read the Koran. It seriously doesn't matter what was once intended - religions are what they are now. Also, Mohammed was no less of an asshole than me. Jesus too. All three of us have (had) nice ideas. I'm in no old books.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 01:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Try the Quakers. They're pretty cool.

― jon (jon), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 09:10 (twenty-three years ago)

If you want to know what early Christianity was really about, you have to study the historical context, not just the contents of the bible. Biblical archeology is actually a fascinating field. (And I'm a militant atheist - but also an ancient history freak.) And on a lighter note, when approached by jesus-peddlers I usually go off about how the cross is the symbol of Rome, not Christ, and the only ligitimate symbol for Christianity is the fish.

― Dave Fischer, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 09:57 (twenty-three years ago)

is this just because you are called fischer?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 10:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Except that the fish symbol predates christianity by a few thousand years.

― toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 11:34 (twenty-three years ago)

And was a symbol for vulvas and wombs.

It's always really shitted me that the xtians stole the fish, because it is such a cool symbol.

― toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 11:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Ok. So? I'm talking about "the ligit symbol for christianity" not "the best interpretation of a fish symbol". They're totally unrelated questions.

― Dave Fischer, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 12:15 (twenty-three years ago)

Good thing about "one truth" thinking: in an environment which is lawless or otherwise hostile, a binding ideology can serve to protect a community and allow it to expand. As I argued on here before, an organised religious body can serve as a counterweight to secular autocracy, functioning as an opposition where none can exist politically. Similarly where the ordinary person is not protected by law, accepting the tenets of an ideology can also lead to a degree of protection and inclusion. This "good thing" is historical, not present-day: we've established more efficient ways of protecting individuals and IMO don't need religious 'guidance' to create community binding agents. Many would disagree.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 12:39 (twenty-three years ago)

How can you say the fish is legit Xtian and the cross not then? Both have previous and alternative meanings, why do you consider the cross illegit if you don't consider the fish to be also? Which is more universally recognised as Xtian? The cross, I'm suspecting.

― toraneko (toraneko), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 13:19 (twenty-three years ago)

the cross cz that's where you the audience got to register your vote

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 13:22 (twenty-three years ago)

I like the cross because it reminds me of the feeling I get when I argue with Christians.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 14:05 (twenty-three years ago)

WORD

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

and on that note :)

Tom your arg as I'm hearing it - religion served to protect people from the capricious whims of undemocratic states by creating a space where opposition to hegemony was possible, (much-needed, you say, because political opposition was barely a possibility). To me it sounds very much like the "obsolescence" arg I've heard about trade unions - that yes, they were good and all back in the day, but now the big bad companies have learned their lesson, so the unions should fade into history and stop poking their noses where they don't belong.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes but similarity of argument doesn't mean similarity of argument-validity. i.e. it's possible to think that the companies haven't learned their lesson so t.u.s are still needed and think that the oppositional element of religion is basically outmoded. It's also possible to agree with the t.u. obsolescence argument and consider that religion's 'job' is more needed than ever - this is the position of a lot of the American right, I'd imagine.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Because in the context of the story of *Christ*, the cross stands for Roman might. It's relevant to the story, but it's on the wrong side. The fish was used because its greek spelling, ICHTHUS, was used as an acronym for "Jesus Christ God Son Saviour". (Which obviously puts it a little bit post-Christ, but still early. (Being Greek and not Aramaic.)) Anyways, I think Christ was of the same race as The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Either that, or he was a Ginger Bread Man ("This bread is my body", and also the emphasis of "rising".)

― Dave Fischer, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:13 (twenty-three years ago)

I thought the cross meant that Jesus didn't smoke drink or take drugs

― xJ0hn Darn13ll3x (J0hn Darn13ll3), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Nah, that was St Andrew.

― RickyT (RickyT), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:42 (twenty-three years ago)

http://wize.free.fr/straightedge/small_life_of_sxe.jpg

(Apologies for the tangential intrustion. You may now all return to the topic, if you wish. I'll be hiding behind a large item of furniture.)

― Rebecca (reb), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:31 (twenty-three years ago)

So that's what happened to Charlie Brown.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.