Why was Jesus' Resurrection not convincing?

reply to post by sacgamer25

If Christ is love, and love is not something that we can feel apart from Christ,

Many people feel love without Christ. You are a parent, a father.
I am a mother.
So is windword.
Love is something we feel, from wherever it comes, and there is more than one method to get there.
May I ask, have you ever read "The Road Less Traveled", by M. Scott Peck?

reply to post by windword


Take your time, my dear. I'll look forward to it!

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by windword

 

Jesus may have been a wonderful man and marvelous teacher, but he was not a "god." He wasn't born of a virgin and he didn't die for my sins or rise from the dead. He is up there with Buddha, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, ect., but he was just a man that went through the same trials as the rest of us.

If we truly followed his teaching, we would be living in a communal society, working together for the good of the community. But, we don't live in society that honors the teachings of Jesus. We live in a capitalistic society, where greed is pervasive. Unfortunately, we still must render to Caesar, and find ways to be of service in our daily, mundane lives. Not because we are ordered to, but because it feels good to do so and enhances our experience of life on Earth to do good deeds.

Yes.
That.

windword, your posts and thoughts are very significant, for me at least. So are those of others who are willing to discuss these things. I find a resonance with your writings here, and for that I thank you.
We are born alone, and die alone, but in between, we needn't be so "alone".

My heart swells with regard for you. Thanks for being here.

I love both of you. There are parts for both of you in my reply. You make my point and yet you fail to see how logical it is. You agree the world would be a utopian society if we were all like Christ. You see your argument is not against Christ, it is against Christianity.

I am clearly offering you a Christ that sounds exactly like the one in the bible. The church offers you a judgmental Christ who only loves you by some sort of some strange election process. You already believe in the love of Christ, why not believe in the rest of his message. At least the part pertaining to your ability to overcome any obstacle in your life. The part that assures you that you were created to overcome sin, not succumb to it.

You were not made imperfect, you were made to become perfect.

When you say you were made imperfect, do you realize you teach "original sin", this concept only comes from RCC not the bible. We were not made imperfect, we were made to become perfect. There is a profound difference in the two beliefs. "Original sin" Religion, Made to become perfect, the bible.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Christ and Jesus are two different entities, in my opinion. There have been many proclaimed Christs, God's representative on Earth. There isn't just one. But the God of the Old Testament isn't a God that I believe in. I do believe what Jesus said about the Kingdom Of God being within, that we do not really die and that we, as spiritually realized souls, are as free as the wind.

I believe in a spiritual hierarchy, angels, guides and oversouls. As I walk on the path of my "hero's journey" there is someone, or something in front of me, that, like chasing a rainbow, can't be touched. It is the perfected self, that I am constantly working toward. You may call that Jesus.

Along my path, I am aware of the giant, ancient ones, watching me. They nod approvingly, allowing me to pass. Sometimes, a valley or canyon may look attractive, and I may veer off the straight and narrow to explore and rest by a steam or climb a summit, for a better view. I may fail to reach that summit the first try, but I continue and try and try again, until I have conquered that hill. This is what I deem to be reincarnation and my detours I call karma.

Once I have convinced myself of my success or failure, I move back on the path, and the giant ancient ones, once again, nod in approval of my passage.

reply to post by sacgamer25

When you say you were made imperfect, do you realize you teach "original sin", this concept only comes from RCC not the bible. We were not made imperfect, we were made to become perfect. There is a profound difference in the two beliefs. "Original sin" Religion, Made to become perfect, the bible.

No. I do not believe in "original sin." We are here to become perfect....that is what I believe.
There is certainly a profound difference. Yet, to become perfect, I believe we must renounce any "particular" path, and seek for ourselves what resonates. I believe that "becoming perfection" is exactly the human condition, and that we spend time here in physical vessels, over and over, toward that end.

reply to post by wildtimes


You don't have to believe this but at least humor me to understanding what I am really saying. This will not be understood if you read it with a naturalistic viewpoint. This is a highly spiritual concept one that I somehow know to be true but am still trying to understand myself.

Christ is love. When you have a child, the child was a gift from God, assuming you wanted it you will perceive that love that has been given to you by God in the form of the gift of children.

Often times we say "I love you", but the other person fails to receive the love. So love is not directly transmitted through the words "I love you". Strange because I really love the people I say "I love you" too but they don't always feel it.

Marriages are lost even though the two people said "I love you". As a matter of fact many people who get divorced will tell you the still love their ex. So if they had love where did they go wrong?

Now if you can look at all emotion as judgment, like rewards for what you did. If you do something bad you feel remorse. If you get angry you feel angry. If you lust you burn with lust. The feelings are all judgments based on what you do, or in other cases what others do to you.

Love requires an act of doing. With some family bonds love is more like God's love, unconditional. But for the most part to love someone you actually have to do something. Simply loving the person in thought is not enough to feel the emotional reward. It is when you do a nice thing, something in servitude to your partner that you will feel love. And if it was done in love than both parties will share the love.

Jesus says when ever two people come together in his name, there he is. When two people come together in love, love is there. Anything asked for in the name of love will be provided to you by love.

Quite simply put only the unrepentant sinner does not know love. So everyone who has ever done something loving has felt Christ, because he is the love of the world. Pursuit of love is pursuit of Christ because they are the same thing.

In essence we have all found Christ, but for most of us he goes by the name love. And if we want more of him in our life we have to do what he taught. And we will receive more love if we do what he taught, this is the promise and a fact. No one seems to dispute that when we do nice things for people out of love that we feel love.

The bible simply says, why not pursue love all the time, and it assures you that you have the power to always do love, and never do anything less. The promise is you were born to be made perfect in love.

reply to post by sacgamer25


I do understand you, and I recall a year or so ago us coming to this common understanding and regard for one another.

Again, have you read, "The Road Less Traveled"? Perhaps if you did so, not only would it reinforce your thoughts and beliefs, but also help to explain my pov, which does not require "Jesus Christ" to achieve.

reply to post by windword


I guess you got to the point faster than I did. What we believe is more similar than different. You see once I can understand that we agree than I know for myself you have Christ.

You see according to what I believe, you could not have come to your conclusion apart from him. He need not reveal himself to you they way he revealed himself to me. And we are free to use whatever terms relate to what has become true for us.

The point I make is simple. Everyone must believe in their ability to love and overcome, come back to the right path. I believe there could be 7,000,000,000 different paths. But there is also only one path, love. But the 7 billion different paths could all look different, but you know we are on the same path because perfect love is at the end.

Now can you see why the interpretation I believe in leads to no separation? How can love separate from love?

It matters not where you find love it only matters that what you have found is really love. Because Christ is love, you have found him. You never have to believe me; the bible also tells me this is ok. The bible says it's enough for me to know you found love, and that everything else we are free to debate as long as we continue loving one another.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

I do understand you, and I recall a year or so ago us coming to this common understanding and regard for one another.

Again, have you read, "The Road Less Traveled"? Perhaps if you did so, not only would it reinforce your thoughts and beliefs, but also help to explain my pov, which does not require "Jesus Christ" to achieve.

I literally hate reading but I will try this one. You have recommended it enough that you might be bringing me a message so it's best I don't ignore.

reply to post by wildtimes


Maybe I should make this clear. I actually appreciate the debate with you. If anyone could poke a hole in the interpretation in my head it would be someone like you. This is why I always ask for people to tell me what concept they don't agree with rather than directly attacking the bible. The bible is easy to attack; but it is the concept that is most important. You help me define my concepts, and yes I know by now you have seen them all. So most of my replies to you are more of a debate that strengths me.

Thanks for the time, hope you haven't mined, you really have been a great help.

P.S. Maybe someday I will be brave enough to take you on a trip down the OT. No time soon just thinking.

reply to post by sacgamer25


And then, read "The Celestine Prophecy".....


Love ya, bro!

Mind? No, I don't mind. Not one bit. And I equally and in measure appreciate your participation in my own "becoming."

reply to post by sacgamer25


I understand what you're saying, and I can appreciate the thought you've put into it. My problem, however, can be loosely explained as this: Jesus, in the Bible, has always been portrayed as an advocate of conditional love. There are certain things you might do, things which occurred as a result of opportunity presented by the very entity who determined that you would be tempted, that will result in damnation.

I have seen love before. I have seen women continuously flutter back to a man who has abused them, and I have see men continuously fall for women who have used them. And yet they will never ever condemn the object of their love, because love will never ever judge them for being who they are. They understand where those cruel behaviors come from, even though they are not omniscient. They can withstand such treatment, even though they are not omnipotent. So how can a god who created imperfection not withstand the presence of it? Why does a god who invented evil condemn the existence of it? Why does a god judge its creations for the design he himself devised?

Who is more guilty? The puppet or the mastermind? Conceivably, such a being cannot be trusted because it would be so easy to force an essentially peaceful person to commit an atrocity, then replace their memories with all the images and thoughts of someone who would have willingly done that deed. That's just one example of how such a being might be dangerous.

Let's take it a step further. I think we have established that "God" and Jesus experienced human emotions. Joy, wrath, jealousy, grief...is it too farfetched to think that "God" might reach down and control events to suit his own agenda? Is it too farfetched to think that at any given time, "God" might violate the gift of free will with impunity? How are we to say otherwise?

That is why no one entity should have all the power. It is too easy for that entity, especially one known to be prey to human emotions, to decide that the salvation of mankind falls to it and it alone, and to decide that the many must sacrifice their rights for the preservation of everything that entity deems to be good and holy. Especially when it becomes obsessed with the idea of protection. How far to go? What lines to draw? What boundaries to cross? What codes to make or break? Protection is a very fickle duty, and only much more so when absolute power is involved.

If you doubt my words, watch I Robot starring Will Smith. That is a perfect example of how a system intended to protect can easily become a system intent upon oppression. Where does love end and tyranny begin? Can you answer me that? Can you explain a clearly defined line between love and tyranny? One that we can all agree with?

That's what I want to know. Jesus' resurrection is nothing if his love is corrupt.

reply to post by sacgamer25


I am honored.
Truly.

I appreciate it also.

reply to post by wildtimes


You go ahead and do this over and over. Im gonna stick to once is enough for me. Haha.....

reply to post by sacgamer25


And....which of us will get our "wish"?
THAT, my friend, is the grand question.

Okay, gotta go watch "Hoarders" now.

Talk to you soon!!!

reply to post by sacgamer25


Good. I'm glad that we were able to reach a point of understanding each other. We just use different names for the same thing.

Life is a roller-coaster, but I believe that I will buy another ticket, stand in line and ride this ride again! Eternity begins as soon as you realize it. There is nothing but the future, and it goes on forever.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I have explained. Repeatedly. If you can't see what I'm talking about, what part of it is hard for you? You dismiss my intelligence and ability to discern my HUMAN EXPERIENCE from fantasy, to compare it to "traditional" or "apologetic" stances (which are not borne out with objectivity) and say that my behavior is "absurd", "blatantly hypocritical", and ---- accuse me of -- what are the other things? 'ad hominem', 'special pleading', 'logical fallacy', blah blah blah.

I have explained. I'm done doing so until you are able to own and address your own obstinacy. Until you are ready to say, "Well, that is a plausible idea that is worth considering," I am done with addressing your stagnant claims.

Whatever it is you "believe" you know about me, NuT, I assure you that a GOOD DEAL of it is mistaken...and still, I wish you well. I hope for your escape and recovery from the clutches of whatever keeps you boxed in.

edit on 27-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Try to go back and follow the dialogue. Save the pithy attempts at ridicule, it just makes you look like a hypocrite

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Which is absurd, a fallacy of logic is just that, an irrational proposition.

I do not believe I have presented anything "irrational" regarding the crucifixion or its possible outcomes. You HAVE called me a liar, when I went to look into Lee Strobel and his "sources".

Absolutely not. That's the epitome of revisionism! I said you told a lie when you claimed you viewed the information I asked you to view, when you did not such thing! You didn't read the book I asked you to, instead you ran to Google to search for a CRITIQUE of the book. So, no you certainly did not view the information itself, yet claimed you did.

Your "apologetics" I guess, don't apply to real-life relationship/discussion and current-events assessment? No need to answer. ... just an idea for thought. ....
Or perhaps it's your style. Just providing feedback. Make of it what you will. I mean you no harm.

My brain operates on the objective, I've never been moved much at all if any by the subjective.

Certainly no harm done, no need to worry.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Maybe you can answer the questions I posed above? So far, it looks as though no one has really deemed my post worthy of a quality response.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You didn't read the book I asked you to, instead you ran to Google to search for a CRITIQUE of the book.

I watched the youtube video of Lee Strobel preaching (and meanwhile selling his book)....
I looked up "Lee Strobel" on google.

I read his "site". I looked at the excerpts available on line without spending money on it.
Did you look into Karen Armstrong? Like I asked you to?

I'm done with this circular, time-consuming, fruitless conversation, NuT. Really. Reread my posts above. I've stated my case, and I don't want to dismiss you as unworthy of further dialogue, but you leave me no choice save:

bang my head on wall and defend myself; or

capitulate that you are right and I am wrong.

I will do neither. Sorry to disappoint. But, it is what it is, for now.

Stalemate.
EDIT TO ADD:

My brain operates on the objective, I've never been moved much at all if any by the subjective.

Love is completely subjective.