Who is better, Jesus the god, or Jesus the man?

Then you should really like the God Jesus as that is as full of contradiction and ambiguity as can be !

 

I have read the NT too many times to count. I have also studied the historical, cultural and political backdrop of the NT times in order to understand what these folks were trying to say. I have also studied the various intentional translation errors, interpolation and omissions made by overzealous scribes in trying to make the Bible better fit the dogma of the day.

My questions to you are:

1) Who wrote the gospel of John
2) How does the author use allegory to get his points across
3) What did the term "logos" mean to the people living Jerusalem at that time
4) Why should we accept John's version of Jesus as opposed to the version given in Mark and Matt.
5) It is obvious that reality is truth .. what is the point of making this comment in relation to the Gospel of John.

 

I prefer the JC who was the enlightened human being, who wasn't ruled over by the ego, and therefore was capable of morality with out it being a thing of self will, self effort. And who showed man that the ego was not necessary and that one could only live in harmony with the Creator if he died to that ego, so that God might dwell in that human being so His Will could be manifested through man on this earth. And who told man how he could find that Kingdom that he was in, inwardly, and what man must do in order to find it.

Of course, that isn't the Christ of Christianity, because they turned him into just another jewish blood sacrifice, and therefore are not Christ like at all. So I like the egoless Jesus, the man who tried to show man the Good News. And who lived his life without killing a soul, and taught of compassion and love. A good example.

 

you're very welcome

 

True that Gays and Harlots always existed, but some societies accepted this openly while others forced Gays and harlots to hide their behaviors from the next generation, while everyone practiced what looked like sexual prudence everywhere


Patriarchy = sexual prudence
Matriarchies = ever more sexually promiscuous in appearance and conduct.

 

Yes, there are many reasons which are not good for the kids nor the nation.

 

Very true!

 

An almost eastern view of Jesus. I like it!

 

A patriarchy is only sexually prudent where women are concerned, men can pretty do what they please and there is no way a matriachy would ever have prostitution (harlots).

 

Sexual prudence... It's Camelot. Humans are sexual animals, like it or not. Those inclined to promiscuity will pursue it with or without your theocratic laws, and gays will be gay with or without it. The only difference is how open and happy they can be about their decisions.

I'm not sure why you think oppressing people makes for a better society. It makes for many more miserable people and does not create paradise on earth.

 

..."reality is truth"...

John has the attention of the whole world today.
I do not.

What John said has been read and discussed by believers and atheists both.
Truth is lord and tells us about things concerning Reality which is our God.
John has the power to tell the world that Truth is what we need to start worshiping, and being accepting.

Even you may see that this, The Word, or logos that Jesus was telling people to bow down to.

 

There is no choice, since the man-god thing is a myth. The Jesus guy, if in fact he did exist, had a pretty good message overall. I just don't buy anything about the afterlife garbage. Wishful thinking.

 

Maybe he should do something about it!

 

Were that the case, despotism would not overwhelmingly be the rule in human history.

 

LOL...
Its not really funny tho...
God is Reality, and he always does something about sexually promiscuous societies.
He sends the Muslim patriarch types externally to invade and destroy them, while he breeds riff raff inside the cities which are full of bastards kids being raised by Welfare mothers.

 

Why? It is a small subset of humanity who become despots. These have tended to be Napoleons, clever but unscrupulous people with sociopathic or narcissistic tendencies who consider themselves above the morality practiced by most. Moral rules are but a constraint and a hindrance to such as these, and they will get around them if possible in order to aggrandise themselves.

 

Yeah sure, he sends the Muslims. And he makes the inner city people screw like rabbits. What the hell kind of god is that?

Next, I guess he'll be sending some sort of worldwide flood to wipe out all the non-righteous. I hope we have a boat big enough to save all the animals!

 

Evidently it does not occur to you to question how a despot manages to control people who outnumber him by as many as 9 orders of magnitude.

 

Fear and intimidation, manipulation, including the use of oragnised religion, often placing himself in a divine role over those foolish enough to believe him... Yet this does not relate to human beings having an innate sense of morality without religion.

 

The existence of god is impossible to prove or disprove. That is probably why someone was smart enough a long time ago to come up with this idea of faith. You cannot prove or disprove something, but you can just have faith that one or one doesn't exist. So, it will never be proven, but one can have faith on either side of the argument. And that is what you all will be left with. For you cannot ever know. You can never have certainty, unless you just create an illusion of certainty and then forget that you yourself created it, so you can believe in your own creation.

So the question is irrelevant, if you demand to KNOW. But egos refuse to have questions that their brains do not have the ability to answer, and so they just pull the answers out of their asses. Some of those asses smell like science, some smell like religion. And then in their ego arrogance, they claim certainty. It's utter nonsense, of the most basic sort. Cosmic absurdity. And yet these people consider themselves to be intelligent? LOL Not a single one in either group, although they may have large memory banks they can use to try to fool you into thinking they know.

 

thanks for once again confirming that agnostic atheism is about the soundest approach we've got.

 

Evidently it does not occur to you to question how such forces can hold sway over people who are, according to you, naturally moral and ethical.

Doubtless you are oblivious to the fact that you've shifted the goal posts.

 

And the only way people can act like JC and be honest is to do what he directed people to do. Seek within the kingdom and walk into it, which is dying to the ego, as he was dead to his. Then, you can actually follow JC, unless you just try to fake it, but that never works. For if you are ruled over by the ego, it will rule you, and there is no way you can act like JC. You are still the same selfish ego.

In order to keep our highly cherished self images, the same one we want to live forever, we instead worship JC, believe in magic blood, do this and that, and the ego then gets to live forever and ever. But these people that do that, can never follow JC. They are just people seeking fire insurance.

No such thing as a genuine Christian. If there were any after he died, they never started a church. What we call Christians are just egos seeking fire insurance. And they think that they bought it, or that the magic blood of Christ bought it for them. Yeah, its utter nonsense.

 

No such thing as agnostic atheism. For the first word implies the inability to know, while the next word implies you know. This is a modern configuration of words, that says nothing. No different from saying one is a agnostic Christian.

Why not just say you are agnostic, which means one thing, instead of combining "I do not and possible cannot know", and "I know? " Incoherent.

 

Interesting take and actually insightful. We are definitely walking bags of ids and egos.