jar - On Christianity

I think such a person existed, and over the years legends grew up about him. I see no reason not to. He said a lot of things. Obviously, the religious part of his thought I disagree with. He strikes me when I read the Gospels as highly intelligent.ABE: As regards his moral ideas, this notion of turning the other cheek doesn't set well with me.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Iano, I would like to have your views on Ringo's idea that New Testament concepts must be modernized.

I'm talking about concepts not practices. Now one of the concepts that is central in the NT is this notion of propitiation to God. It is, of course, an ancient idea, a Pagan idea, but very much alive in the 1st century. It is also a central idea of Christianity down through the ages. Jesus dies as propitiation for our sins. This is very different from little details about living such as when to use our oxen.Jar eliminates that essential concept and subsititutes instead as one of his modernizations an idea that is not in the NT. This is the notion that we must learn to love ourselves. There is certainly talk in the NT about the fact that we do love ourselves, but it's not seen as some merit or something that we must learn to do. It's just taken as a granted fact about human nature.So what Jar has done is not modernize but pervert the ideas in the New Testament.I'm not criticizing here Jar's ideas per se--I'm just saying that they are not Biblical and so he ought not to be claiming that they are.

He was deluded.That's what makes the story so tragic.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Who are you addressing?

88.95

A philosophy generally contains concepts. The concepts provide the reasons for the practices. I can't speak for iano but loving myself comes very easily to me. I've always loved myself, and I always will. But it's not a merit, nor is it something I "learned." It just came naturally. The Biblical writers are right about that.

I don't see why.One problem I've noticed, however, is that some people--not myself, of course--love themselves a bit too much, which makes them unlovable to others. One must be judicious in one's self-love.

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head."Due to his self-love, Jesus wanted a bed for the night.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

NOt many. Hitler is not a very good example.ABE: The Buddha would be better.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

These writers never talk about the person of Jesus. What attracts me is that they talk very realistically about the nature of life as it is lived by us--very different from the modern sentimental sensibility, as evidenced by the posters on this forum.

A fringe group? Really now . .

I was telling you what attracted me to these writers.

Probably because they are not modern. There were nihilistic writers as well. Shakespeare was technically a member of the Church of England, but he was a nihilist at heart. And there's Hemingway who portrayed life realistically at times, and he only flirted with the Catholic church once because one time it seem to cure his impotence.In the 60s the world, contrary to popular belief, grew sentimental, and it's been on a campaign ever since to wipe out rational nihilism and make us all public-spirited.It's a cultural rather than religious matter.

You were asking me why I admired the writings of these devout Christians, and I was explaining to you that the reason I admired their writings was for the same reason I admired the writings of others in the past who were a far cry from devout Christians.So it's not that they were Christians--it was that they had a view of the world that had some meat in it, not just candy.