from a letter to the editor that someotherguy is reading:

[serene]

"As for those who would use threats and intimidation to force merchants to put Christ back in Christmas, how about putting Christ back in Christian?" -- Floyd A. Newsom, in the Ogden Standard

(Personally, I think Christ was a fiend I wouldn't want to emulate, but when people talk about putting Christ back into things, I think they're generally talking about putting values like compassion and love for fellow man[sic] in there, so I think it would be a start.)

Comments

[coyote3502.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with Christ. read what he actually had to say, at least as protrayed in the Gospels. Most of what we vilify christians for was never taught by Christ, but by Paul and the leaders of the Church that followed him.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

Are you assuming I haven't read what he had to say? (Even though I don't believe that anything in the bible is an actual transcription of what an actual human said.) Here are a few gems:

From Mark 16:

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Matthew 10:34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


And there's more. The Jesus of the gospels is not someone I would want to know, and if he showed up today, advising people to drink poison to prove their faithfulness, he'd be decried as a cult leader.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

The quotes from Mark don't show up in every manuscript, and are absent from the most trusted ones... at least, this was in the notation from one bible I read.

There is one thing that does bug me about the way you word this, though, and it's a hard point to make.

What you're saying is, you don't trust anyone to tell you anything about what Jesus was really like.

Nevertheless, sight unseen, you're pretty sure you wouldn't like him.

And it just bugs me. Why do you have a positive notion that you wouldn't like him? Why do you just not have any notion about whether you'd like him or not, if you don't have any information about him that you feel is trustworthy?

Herm. I hope it's obvious, what bothers me is the reasoning, the pairing of the two ideas. I don't give a damn if you think Jesus is a terrible person.

It's just
"I don't know him"
"I don't (think I'd) like him"

put together that frustrates me.

And sure, you can't separate Jesus, the man, from Christianity. That Christianity has been used in nasty ways, that many Christians preach nasty things, you can't separate that from your feelings about Jesus as a human being.

And it doesn't *matter*, either. Jesus is long gone, and isn't going to be hurt by how you feel about him.

It still bugs me on an irrational level.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

What you're saying is, you don't trust anyone to tell you anything about what Jesus was really like.

Nevertheless, sight unseen, you're pretty sure you wouldn't like him.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is threefold:

1) No one knows what the historical Jesus was like, or even if he ever existed.

2) The Jesus (and his father, Jehovah/God) depicted in the standard bible is someone loathesome, that I *know* I don't like.

3) I have no opinion at all on whether or not I would have liked the historical Jesus, nor do I care about the question one way or the other, as what matters is what's being done with the depiction, which may or may not match the person, but probably doesn't.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. When I responded, I hadn't realized that you draw a distinction between the historical man and the man described in the bible, and that's what was causing the disconnect.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

If HE'd just come back, it'd solve all the debate wouldn't it? We'd all convert, HE could tell us which depictions are right and which are wrong and we'd all live happily ever after.

He's supposed to come back and reveal himself at SOME POINT right? He might as well have done it already.

That's why I don't think I'd like him if he were real. He's shiftless. Lazy and no account. You think we all wouldn't like to go walking around pulling dinner out of thin air? No. The rest of us have to work for a living and don't have famous fathers to bail us out every time.

"Hey dad, I need to feed a lot of people but I couldn't make it to the store. Any ideas?"
"Hey dad, these lepers are gross, could you help out here huh?"
"Hey dad, I'm dead could you resurrect me?"

No wonder The President and his kids like Jesus so much. They can identify with him. They're no account too!

You know I only kid because I care.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

As johnpalmer said, the Mark passage if of highly questionable origin -- I can get more specific when I'm with my reference material, if you're interested.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

How can a person who didn't exist be a fiend? Although I heard his followers eat human flesh and blood so I guess they're ghouls.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

There are at least two Jesuses: There's the person purported to be depicted by the bible -- It is likely that that person either didn't exist, or existed but was spun into a legend by people who followed him.

Then there's the depiction itself, which paints Jesus and his dad as horrible psychopathic killers and fiends. I mean, the old testament reads like a true-crime story of a crazed serial killer. "Kill all the people of that tribe that doesn't believe in me, and make sure you get all the pregnant women and the babies, but save the young women to be your sex slaves." Just depraved beyond belief.

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

So far as I've read or heard, there's no real proof that there was an actual guy walking around called Jesus. There are no contemporary reports and the earliest gospel was writen like half a century later. There are contemporary reports of some other guy who said some of the same stuff but under a different name and without all the magic tricks.

The depiction itself varies quite a bit from book to book. Sometimes he's got an axe to grind and sometimes he's beating it into a plowshare.

That's why I've never understood Christianity at all. The Old testement god may be a prissy bitch but at least he's fairly consistent. There are the chosen people and then there's everyone else and it's like that right up to the end. Fuck everyone else and the chosen people better not get any funny ideas either. He's not real nice to us jews but he's hell on the other guy.

[horis.livejournal.com]

Now I am not one to comment on journals. However I thought this link would interest you in relation to this entry.
Man or Myth (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_jesus/)
As it is you will find the information in this article constantly all over the net and written works.

Horis