I have real hard time with religious teaching of someone who died on the cross

I will be saved, and only by accepting Jesus as my Savior, blah blah blah.
That's just more competition of many religions, "one and only true god" as it
were. "If there weren't so many religions we'd have more paying sheep
followers."

Now with second viewing of Passion of Christ, something I still find somewhat
disturbing, I am more solid in my theory of the reality.

What if it WAS the plan to make a classic human mistake to show YOU what can
happen? Mistakes equal consequences. But that's it, an example for you to
ponder and POSSIBLY clue you in. No one is going to save you no matter how many
Jesus' get nailed to the cross. It is really up to you. Willing to go through
that experience for you, that you might have a better chance; "no greater
love".

My interpretation of the lesson: If you're angry, it's not time to communicate
with anyone. I am not saying you're a bad and wrong person if you ever feel
anger, no no no. You need to process the anger to completion, until it's gone.
But process in a way so that it doesn't destroy you, or hurt anyone else; anger
becoming a positive (though contracting) emotion, with a positive result.

Passion cannot rule nor can logic, they must rule together. Expression of
emotion should, needs, must be tempered with logic, enough so that it BECOMES
positive, with thought and action balanced and tempered by expansive emotion of
the heart. Now sadly unfortunately one third of the trinity will never know what
love feels like and will never be able to do it, because of what they are, dark
souls. Their angry logic has no wife, no heart to guide their thoughts. What
would be worse and far scarier than that of course, would be all emotion with
no logic. So how do you do it?

Angry? "Walk away", and get off by yourself, that's step 1. Fail here and it
COULD be a defining failure. There can be 7 steps to a synergistic process. The
4th step is the core.

Processing Anger
1. Create space - get off alone
2. Create thought - what is causing this anger
3. Create ideas - what would be an appropriate expression that doesn't hurt
4. Express the anger - get it out and be done with it - don't take it back
5. Create new ideas
6. Create new thought
7. Create new space - so that there is a basis for communication in the future


at all and even if it was just made up.

So what love could make one willing to go through all of that for you, just so
you can have a defining example? Whenever anyone that great comes into the
world, the world is changed, not "saved by the one and only god". "No greater
love".

The part left out in the movie, to help you make this connection, was the part
where he got a whip and threw a temper tantrum in the temple, the only case
they had on him and only excuse for the nailing, instead of creating space and
processing the anger in a positive manner.

All the action taken when angry, other than creating space, is based in a
control-trip. Step one requires that you give up your pathetic and moronic
control-trip.

47 minutes into the movie you see the most profound dialog of the movie. Pilate
asks his wife Claudia, what is truth? Do you recognize it? She replied yes.
Pontius then asks how. "If you will not hear the truth, no can tell you", she
says to him.

I write since it helps me remember, not to put down religion, though it may be
way down there on its own.

Another subject on topic would be the list of reasons people go to church. I am
not going into the whole list but a couple to think about.

Guilt is big one and for social reasons to meet other people are perhaps at the
top of the list, with worship and prayer being very low. And after all the
scripture did say to do your praying and worship in private not public. Doh!

Post a reply to this message

"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:

I think you miss some details:


> ... just so you can have a defining example ...

I don't think this is very high on the list of reasons Jesus had to die.


> ...a temper tantrum in the temple, the only case they had
> on him and only excuse for the nailing ...

Charges were blasphemy and treason.

Post a reply to this message

alphaQuad wrote:
> I have real hard time with religious teaching of someone who died on the cross

> I will be saved, and only by accepting Jesus as my Savior, blah blah blah.
> That's just more competition of many religions, "one and only true god" as it
> were. "If there weren't so many religions we'd have more paying sheep
> followers."
> 
> Now with second viewing of Passion of Christ, something I still find somewhat
> disturbing, I am more solid in my theory of the reality.
> 
> What if it WAS the plan to make a classic human mistake to show YOU what can
> happen? Mistakes equal consequences. But that's it, an example for you to
> ponder and POSSIBLY clue you in. No one is going to save you no matter how many
> Jesus' get nailed to the cross. It is really up to you. Willing to go through
> that experience for you, that you might have a better chance; "no greater
> love".
> 
The plan was to lump a lot of "popular" cults together into one, stage a 
fictional character, with a lot of fudging of details, to be the new 
"messiah" for the Jews that Rome was fighting at the time the Bible 
seems to actually have been written, then pull a Egyptian style take 
over, by claiming that the hero of the war was the "second coming", and 
that his father was the "God" he was the son of. One dating system used 
for the period, CE "Christian Era", places the Bible as written some 
time around 71-79CE, the war between 60-80CE, and the only "secondary" 
sources of confirmation of Jesus written by the "servant" of the first 
"official" Christians, who happened to be the heroes of the war, as 
written in 79CE, and a later addendum written in like 81CE, or 
something, this later one was added "after" both the "Emperor God" and 
the hero Titus where dead, a new family had moved into the rulership, 
and the only way for the Pope, who was also of the same family, and 
Josephus, their Jewish servant, to salvage anything, was to divorce 
their new "faith" from the myth of Titus and his father, claim that the 
second coming hadn't really happened yet, and hope they could keep their 
new found power.

Or, that is one interpretation anyway. It would "help" **a lot** if 
someone could find "anything" earlier than around 71CE that indicated 
the Bible wasn't written "at the same time" as these people where making 
a grab for both secular and spiritual rule, while coincidentally being 
the "first official Christians".

But, aside for that, there is the fact that people have uncovered, (and 
again, no evidence of earlier than 71CE though), the Gospel of Mary, and 
one from Judas, which drastically contradict both the claims of how the 
betrayal took place, and what it actually means to "find salvation". 
Hint: Its wasn't betrayal, and you can't be saved by just believing 
really really hard, and then not doing anything to make the world better.

Needless to say, after a "brief" bit of gnashing of teeth, and a few 
news reports, the very existence of these two documents got quietly 
swept under the carpet and religious people shut up about them, really 
fast. Not hard to work out why, since they contradict not one, but two, 
of the most strongly held assumptions by 90% of all Christians.

All in all, the claim that Christianity wasn't "invented", and it all 
really happened, is not unlike the claim that, "space aliens gave us the 
micro chip". You can't 100% disprove that the government didn't conspire 
to have the inventors of the transistor "reverse engineer" the 
technology, or what ever, and you can't "disprove" the existence of 
"any" kind of alien space craft, but, much like images of Jesus on 
toast, you tend to suspect that the "evidence" is a lot of people seeing 
things, but not having correct explanations, and until someone produces 
an actual object from, or ship, in some secret government base some 
place, the most reasonable explanation is, "Someone made it up to sell 
something, and a lot of other fools fell for it."

That said, if they hadn't "needed" to staple the OT onto it, as a means 
to pacify the Jewish people, who wanted Rome dead at the time, and the 
nut Paul, with his insanity induced revelations section, had been 
recognized as "actually nuts", we might have ended up with something 
halfway useful. Instead, we have something where, if you want the world 
to end, you can cherry pick the crazy bits from the crazy person, at the 
end, and if you want to justify death, mass murder, hating gays, blacks, 
Mexicans, or anyone else in the wrong "tribe", you can cherry pick bits 
of the OT to justify that too. Its a grab bag for everything from flower 
children to the next dominionist racist, who thinks the world would be 
better off without all of Cain's children running around on it (which 
ever color, race, country, political affiliation, or other random thing 
they decide to claim is a "sign" of being one of those).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Regardless of the degree of veracity of anything that has been written
in this thread, I'm not sure that such a thread is very relevant here.
Attacking people's faith is a very polemic issue, and the only thing it
causes is flamewars.

  alphaQuad is a semi-troll, so something like this isn't unexpected from
him, but to all the others: let's just stop it, regardless of whether you
are a believer or an atheist. This kind of thread can cause no good. For
people who have the same world view as you it will simply be preaching to
the choir, and to people with the opposite view it will simply be a red
cloth which will cause useless arguments.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> This kind of thread can cause no good. 

Just out of curiosity, and I ask this as an atheist asking an intelligent 
person of faith, do you think it's ever possible to have a useful discussion 
between disagreeing parties? :-)

I find discussing it can be useful to me, not because it makes me change my 
mind or because I change someone else's mind, but because it lets me 
understand the other point of view better, and lets me deal with religion 
better.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 6-6-2009 22:07, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> This kind of thread can cause no good. 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, and I ask this as an atheist asking an 
> intelligent person of faith, do you think it's ever possible to have a 
> useful discussion between disagreeing parties? :-)
> 
> I find discussing it can be useful to me, not because it makes me change 
> my mind or because I change someone else's mind, but because it lets me 
> understand the other point of view better, and lets me deal with 
> religion better.
> 
I always say that a discussion between two parties is not aimed at any 
of the participants as they will generally be convicted of their own 
point, often more so after the discussion.
Discussion are aimed at the innocent bystanders, they can still be hit 
by cunning arguments.

So in general I am all for discussions about faith. I haven't seen this 
movie but what I heard about it seemed not to add anything to any 
discussion whatsoever. It is merely the interpretation of some person 
that is known for other things than a thorough understanding of the 
bible. As such I would dismiss any discussion on that movie as rather 
futile and therefore I did not even read alphaQ's post, also because it 
is rather long. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>I always say that a discussion between two

If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6-6-2009 23:46, Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> I always say that a discussion between two
> 
> If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.
> 
But Warp's post was a metapost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaPost, 
thanks Don for that) or an attempt to hijack a thread that was about 
something he does not want anybody to discuss.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a2ac6ab@news.povray.org...

[...]
> This kind of thread can cause no good. For
> people who have the same world view as you it will simply be preaching to
> the choir, and to people with the opposite view it will simply be a red
> cloth which will cause useless arguments.

I understand what you are saying, but just to be the devil's advocate,
doesn't pretty much any kind of discussion on usenet follow the same
pattern? I think the point of online discussions is to simply vent, rather
than try to convert people.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A2### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 6-6-2009 23:46, Stephen wrote:
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:06:18 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

> >> I always say that a discussion between two
> >
> > If Warp had not posted, there would have been at least 4 posts less.

> But Warp's post was a metapost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaPost,
> thanks Don for that) or an attempt to hijack a thread that was about
> something he does not want anybody to discuss.

Would I be correct in suggesting that yours is than a meta-metapost?

Post a reply to this message