| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Terry Cross" |
| Date: |
17 Jun 2005 07:22:55 PM |
| Object: |
The Teachings of Jesus |
=C6rchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak,=
the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel.
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and =
the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, bu=
t of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at=
his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
From what little we know of Jesus' life, your statement is true. But
we know very little of his life.
His many references
to God (his Father) within that context must (so that they could be
understood by his listeners) have been the God of the Jews.
None of the prophets (authorities on the Hebrew God) referred to
Jehovah as "our father." The term did not establish a consistency - it
would seem more an inconsistency.
If it were not
so, surely he would have spent some time introducing them to a new God.
As I say, we have only a tiny fragment of what are said to be 3 years
of sermons.
Celestial politics are not a big part of Jesus' teachings. He did not
worry his listeners with the nature of angels, the Trinity, his own
virgin birth, where was God standing when he set off the Big Bang -
none of that.
Jesus was primarily concerned - as I read it - in teaching people how
to treat each other. Sometimes he corrected the Pharisees to follow
more closely the Law of Moses (Matthew 15:3). But sometimes Jesus set
aside Mosaic Law, as with the stoning of the Adultress (John 8). This
inconsistency is explained, I think, because he was using the levers
available to make people understand his teaching: he expoited Hebraic
doctrine when it was consitent with his doctrine, and defied it when it
did not suit.
Jesus also taught about the place held by each individual human in the
biosphere and in the Universe. He said, in effect, the same as the
Desiderata:
"You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here."
It would be a sermon of great comfort in a culture that taught that
only kings have rights, and commoners were their property.
TCross
.
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
17 Jun 2005 08:44:42 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Columbus came from a culture of Flat-Earthers
Actually, he didn't. The Catholic Church didn't teach that the earth
was flat. They taught [1st century astronomer] Ptolomy's model of the
universe which had a spherical Earth in the center of the universe with
all the other celestial bodies orbiting it.
The fact that the earth is round was first proven by the ancient Greek
scientist Eartosthenes around 200 bce, even though everyone was pretty
sure it was round even before then simply by seeing ships coming over
the ocean horizon. When Eartosthenes proved that the earth was round,
he also calculated the circumference of the earth, a figure that was
used from that point on until more accurate forms of measurement were
developed.
When Columbus read a middle-eastern document (originally translated
from Greek) that talked about the size of the earth, he neglected to
convert the distance from arabic miles to spanish miles, and believed
that the earth was about half the size that everyone else thought it
was.
The reason that Ferdinand and Isabel didn't want to give Columbus the
ships had nothing to do with falling off the earth, they were simply
sure that he would run out of food before he hit India. And if there
hadn't been another continent in the way, they would have been right.
So basically, Columbus was wrong and everyone else was right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
17 Jun 2005 11:58:40 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Ærchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel.
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
Martin Luther and Guatama both renounced there former positions in
search of new religious understanding. (Not that it did much good in
Luther's case!)
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
18 Jun 2005 12:42:55 AM |
|
|
"James Ascher" <jwa1968@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QsJse.5456$hK3.4828@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Terry Cross wrote:
Ærchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak,
the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel.
If this all caring God could do this in biblical times why does he now turn
his back on millions of
innocent children killed by Psunamis, terrible illnesses and starvation?
It doesn't appear that he actually exists but if he does he is sure a mean
cruel *****!
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and
the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead,
but of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at
his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
Martin Luther and Guatama both renounced there former positions in
search of new religious understanding. (Not that it did much good in
Luther's case!)
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
20 Jun 2005 04:17:23 AM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
If this all caring God could do this in biblical times why does he now turn
his back on millions of
innocent children killed by Psunamis, terrible illnesses and starvation?
Moses' God is not a cheap trickster.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
20 Jun 2005 04:13:28 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Ærchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel.
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
Your point, being?
From what little we know of Jesus' life, your statement is true. But
we know very little of his life.
His many references
to God (his Father) within that context must (so that they could be
understood by his listeners) have been the God of the Jews.
None of the prophets (authorities on the Hebrew God) referred to
Jehovah as "our father." The term did not establish a consistency - it
would seem more an inconsistency.
When you read the nt that's what you get.
If it were not
so, surely he would have spent some time introducing them to a new God.
As I say, we have only a tiny fragment of what are said to be 3 years
of sermons.
That fragment being?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
20 Jun 2005 11:28:18 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
=C6rchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to sp=
eak, the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and th=
ey
glorified the God of Israel.
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read =
that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, =
and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead=
, but of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonishe=
d at his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
Your point, being?
Archie wrote:
"Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society."
I was showing Archie that his "wherefore-therefore" reasoning is not
necessarily correct. The God of Jesus was not necessarily the God of
the Jews.
From what little we know of Jesus' life, your statement is true. But
we know very little of his life.
His many references
to God (his Father) within that context must (so that they could be
understood by his listeners) have been the God of the Jews.
None of the prophets (authorities on the Hebrew God) referred to
Jehovah as "our father." The term did not establish a consistency - it
would seem more an inconsistency.
When you read the nt that's what you get.
A close reading shows that the character of Jehovah pictured in the OT
and the character of "our father" as described by Jesus (in the
Gospels) are very different.
If it were not
so, surely he would have spent some time introducing them to a new Go=
d=2E
As I say, we have only a tiny fragment of what are said to be 3 years
of sermons.
That fragment being?
The Gospels. As fragmentary and unreliable as they are, the rest of
the NT is even worse. Until at the end of the NT, we get that bad
mushroom dream of St. John the Divine (Revelations), and Jesus turns
into a warrior god somewhere between Thor and David.
If Jesus were a god to be worshiped and feared, he would NOT have been
born in a manger to an unwed mother. As Leonard Cohen wrote of him, he
"spent a long time watching from a lonely wooden tower. And when he
knew for certain only drowning men could see him ..."
Jesus did not appeal to rich merchants, kings, judges, and generals.
He appealed to fishermen, shepherds, beggars, women, and children.
Jesus did not come in armor and rich robes in a fiery chariot to be
worshiped as the high priest of Jehovah's gold-encrusted Temple. Jesus
came as an artisan, then a wandering preacher in a simple robe who
stayed with friends. He walked between towns or rode a donkey, and he
talked with anyone and everyone he met.
The Moses approach to Jehovah was through sacrifices, Temple ritual,
priestly intervention, fear, and mystery. Jesus taught his followers
to go home to their closets and pray directly to Our Father - the very
opposite. In the language of European religious history, Jehovah was
very much High Church. Jesus was very much low church.
Marketing is all about positioning. Jesus did not assume or hold the
position that the later NT writers says he held. Not to say that he
could not, but that he did not. There is a logical hiatus in the NT
picture.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
21 Jun 2005 02:20:09 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
Ærchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel.
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
Your point, being?
Archie wrote:
"Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society."
I was showing Archie that his "wherefore-therefore" reasoning is not
necessarily correct. The God of Jesus was not necessarily the God of
the Jews.
From what little we know of Jesus' life, your statement is true. But
we know very little of his life.
His many references
to God (his Father) within that context must (so that they could be
understood by his listeners) have been the God of the Jews.
None of the prophets (authorities on the Hebrew God) referred to
Jehovah as "our father." The term did not establish a consistency - it
would seem more an inconsistency.
When you read the nt that's what you get.
A close reading shows that the character of Jehovah pictured in the OT
and the character of "our father" as described by Jesus (in the
Gospels) are very different.
Even a skim should get you to the same conclusion.
If it were not
so, surely he would have spent some time introducing them to a new God.
As I say, we have only a tiny fragment of what are said to be 3 years
of sermons.
That fragment being?
The Gospels. As fragmentary and unreliable as they are, the rest of
the NT is even worse. Until at the end of the NT, we get that bad
mushroom dream of St. John the Divine (Revelations), and Jesus turns
into a warrior god somewhere between Thor and David.
If the nt is so dim and bollixed, where do you get your
impressions of that born in a stable guy?
If Jesus were a god to be worshiped and feared, he would NOT have been
born in a manger to an unwed mother. As Leonard Cohen wrote of him, he
"spent a long time watching from a lonely wooden tower. And when he
knew for certain only drowning men could see him ..."
Jesus did not appeal to rich merchants, kings, judges, and generals.
He appealed to fishermen, shepherds, beggars, women, and children.
Jesus did not come in armor and rich robes in a fiery chariot to be
worshiped as the high priest of Jehovah's gold-encrusted Temple. Jesus
came as an artisan, then a wandering preacher in a simple robe who
stayed with friends. He walked between towns or rode a donkey, and he
talked with anyone and everyone he met.
The Moses approach to Jehovah was through sacrifices, Temple ritual,
priestly intervention, fear, and mystery. Jesus taught his followers
to go home to their closets and pray directly to Our Father - the very
opposite. In the language of European religious history, Jehovah was
very much High Church. Jesus was very much low church.
Marketing is all about positioning. Jesus did not assume or hold the
position that the later NT writers says he held. Not to say that he
could not, but that he did not. There is a logical hiatus in the NT
picture.
Yes but how to span that gap logically?
The manger guy appealed to so few in life and after his death that
logically, left on its own merits, no religion would have grown
around him. His apostles wouldn't have had the audience to start
one either. The only logical explanation I can see is a new religion
being fabricated on popular pagan lines and politically coerced
into place by the Romans. The Romans had learned from the
example set by the Jews that its expedient and practical policy to
put your new/old religion on clean parchment, and notarize it.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
21 Jun 2005 02:35:42 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
The Gospels. As fragmentary and unreliable as they are, the rest of
the NT is even worse. Until at the end of the NT, we get that bad
mushroom dream of St. John the Divine (Revelations), and Jesus turns
into a warrior god somewhere between Thor and David.
If the nt is so dim and bollixed, where do you get your
impressions of that born in a stable guy?
In chosing from the contradictory elements withing the NT and within
the Gospels, the humble birth of Jesus is consistent. But not
essential.
If Jesus were a god to be worshiped and feared, he would NOT have been
born in a manger to an unwed mother. As Leonard Cohen wrote of him, he
"spent a long time watching from a lonely wooden tower. And when he
knew for certain only drowning men could see him ..."
Jesus did not appeal to rich merchants, kings, judges, and generals.
He appealed to fishermen, shepherds, beggars, women, and children.
Jesus did not come in armor and rich robes in a fiery chariot to be
worshiped as the high priest of Jehovah's gold-encrusted Temple. Jesus
came as an artisan, then a wandering preacher in a simple robe who
stayed with friends. He walked between towns or rode a donkey, and he
talked with anyone and everyone he met.
The Moses approach to Jehovah was through sacrifices, Temple ritual,
priestly intervention, fear, and mystery. Jesus taught his followers
to go home to their closets and pray directly to Our Father - the very
opposite. In the language of European religious history, Jehovah was
very much High Church. Jesus was very much low church.
Marketing is all about positioning. Jesus did not assume or hold the
position that the later NT writers says he held. Not to say that he
could not, but that he did not. There is a logical hiatus in the NT
picture.
Yes but how to span that gap logically?
I hope we don't wish to.
The manger guy appealed to so few in life and after his death that
logically, left on its own merits, no religion would have grown
around him.
This is a major blunder in many marketing stories. People don't want
organic food - let's give them BHTA in every package and MSG in every
meal. People don't want nice stories in the movies. Let's give them
brutal, wrenching, terrifying, gory, salacious movies. On and on and
on.
The fact is that the manger story DOES appeal to people, and it
preserved as a key part of the pageant. It is not Jesus, the Fiery God
of Vengeance and Justice, who appears in so so many paintings and
statues. It is the very human and vulnerable Jesus of Nazareth,
teaching, preaching, praying, weeping, or dying.
His apostles wouldn't have had the audience to start
one either. The only logical explanation I can see is a new religion
being fabricated on popular pagan lines and politically coerced
into place by the Romans. The Romans had learned from the
example set by the Jews that its expedient and practical policy to
put your new/old religion on clean parchment, and notarize it.
Easy to speculate, but I don't agree. And I don't think that picture
represents the real Jesus who lived and walked in Jerusalem.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Pompe" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
21 Jun 2005 02:46:47 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
And I don't think that picture
represents the real Jesus who lived and walked in Jerusalem.
Did he do that?
Can you show me his footprints?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
21 Jun 2005 03:52:46 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
The Gospels. As fragmentary and unreliable as they are, the rest of
the NT is even worse. Until at the end of the NT, we get that bad
mushroom dream of St. John the Divine (Revelations), and Jesus turns
into a warrior god somewhere between Thor and David.
If the nt is so dim and bollixed, where do you get your
impressions of that born in a stable guy?
In chosing from the contradictory elements withing the NT and within
the Gospels, the humble birth of Jesus is consistent. But not
essential.
I don't believe I could submit to my own ideas concerning God no
matter how well thought out. And as your ideas can't possibly be
consistent, given the description you give of sketchy source material,
I still have to wonder how you arrive at conclusions you can trust.
If Jesus were a god to be worshiped and feared, he would NOT have been
born in a manger to an unwed mother. As Leonard Cohen wrote of him, he
"spent a long time watching from a lonely wooden tower. And when he
knew for certain only drowning men could see him ..."
Jesus did not appeal to rich merchants, kings, judges, and generals.
He appealed to fishermen, shepherds, beggars, women, and children.
Jesus did not come in armor and rich robes in a fiery chariot to be
worshiped as the high priest of Jehovah's gold-encrusted Temple. Jesus
came as an artisan, then a wandering preacher in a simple robe who
stayed with friends. He walked between towns or rode a donkey, and he
talked with anyone and everyone he met.
The Moses approach to Jehovah was through sacrifices, Temple ritual,
priestly intervention, fear, and mystery. Jesus taught his followers
to go home to their closets and pray directly to Our Father - the very
opposite. In the language of European religious history, Jehovah was
very much High Church. Jesus was very much low church.
Marketing is all about positioning. Jesus did not assume or hold the
position that the later NT writers says he held. Not to say that he
could not, but that he did not. There is a logical hiatus in the NT
picture.
Yes but how to span that gap logically?
I hope we don't wish to.
?
The manger guy appealed to so few in life and after his death that
logically, left on its own merits, no religion would have grown
around him.
This is a major blunder in many marketing stories. People don't want
organic food - let's give them BHTA in every package and MSG in every
meal. People don't want nice stories in the movies. Let's give them
brutal, wrenching, terrifying, gory, salacious movies. On and on and
on.
The fact is that the manger story DOES appeal to people, and it
preserved as a key part of the pageant. It is not Jesus, the Fiery God
of Vengeance and Justice, who appears in so so many paintings and
statues. It is the very human and vulnerable Jesus of Nazareth,
teaching, preaching, praying, weeping, or dying.
No one, ah say, no one worships a weeping or dying god. Should
such a god be venerated it would be by the person worshipping at
the foot of self pity.
His apostles wouldn't have had the audience to start
one either. The only logical explanation I can see is a new religion
being fabricated on popular pagan lines and politically coerced
into place by the Romans. The Romans had learned from the
example set by the Jews that its expedient and practical policy to
put your new/old religion on clean parchment, and notarize it.
Easy to speculate, but I don't agree. And I don't think that picture
represents the real Jesus who lived and walked in Jerusalem.
But who is this "real" person? So far as I can tell, there is absolutely
no consensus regarding his existence or the form it took.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
21 Jun 2005 03:16:09 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
[. . .]
Terry Cross is a Nazi and a revisionist.
http://tinyurl.com/c8d7s
I urge all moral people to shun Terry. Do not reply to any of
Terry's posts except with this (or a similar) message.
NEVER AGAIN!
Sincerely,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
20 Jun 2005 11:52:32 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
[. . .]
Terry Cross is a Nazi and a revisionist.
http://tinyurl.com/c8d7s
I urge all moral people to shun Terry. Do not reply to any of
Terry's posts except with this (or a similar) message.
NEVER AGAIN!
Sincerely,
b&
--
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ærchie" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
18 Jun 2005 10:33:16 AM |
|
|
The curfew had been lifted and the gamblin' wheel shut down, Anyone with
any sense had already left town. Yet Terry Cross was standin' in the
doorway saying:
Ærchie wrote:
Matthew 15:31
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the
maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel.
Matthew 22:31-33
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of
the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his
doctrine.
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
I'm sorry, I must be dense - none of the above seems to have any relevance.
From what little we know of Jesus' life, your statement is true. But
we know very little of his life.
His many references
to God (his Father) within that context must (so that they could be
understood by his listeners) have been the God of the Jews.
None of the prophets (authorities on the Hebrew God) referred to
Jehovah as "our father." The term did not establish a consistency - it
would seem more an inconsistency.
Of course they didn't. They were His prophets, not His Son. After all, I
would not refer to you as "Father", yet you would still be the same person
when referred to as "My Father" by your son.
Ærchie
--
Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading
smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.
Sir Julian Huxley (1887 - 1975)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Teachings of Jesus |
20 Jun 2005 04:20:41 AM |
|
|
"Ærchie" wrote:
So your God is actually the God of the Jews,
Most definitely not.
But - but - but -
Jesus was a Jew and spent his time in Jewish society.
But Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest. And Siddartha Guatama Buddha
was a Hindu Brahman prince. Columbus came from a culture of
Flat-Earthers, and George Washington was a British subject.
I'm sorry, I must be dense - none of the above seems to have any relevance.
They don't, unless there is relevance along concocted garden paths.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
