I'm sure many have seen this before. I never had. I found it quite touching.



If it has been posted here before, I'm sorry. The memory is the second... or third thing to go, I guess.

Not to be rude but in my opinion, humble or not, the idea of christianity always bothered me. Pagans are not much better as often times they are rebelling against their christian upbringing. The idea that they sit to a table and get along, great. Mostly it's because people cling to or run to Dieties that quite frankly couldn't give a shit about them. To me it's almost as bad as an Anglo trying to be buddhist or maybe even Mexicans being catholic. All I see are confused people. Not that I am atheist or anything. Atheists are soulless.

The song wasn't impressive either. Maybe had their been more cleavage, maybe not.

So...Deities exist...but they don't give a shit about people.

Interesting.

Buddhism originated in India, so maybe an "Anglo" being Buddhist is less farfetched than you think.

I'm betting Siddhartha Gautama was not Anglo.
And I'm not sure there were many Brits in India in the 6th century BCE.

No rudeness taken. As a "souless" atheist, I would put all those espousing any supernatural deity in the same catagory. But I enjoyed the story of a family members reuniting and accepting their differences and building on their similarities.

Religion all too often tears apart families and friendships... hell, nations for that matter. I thought it was a wonderful story.

Siddartha Gautama was caucasian. As are most Northern Indians, and it's been that way for more than 4,000 years.

Now you can feel free to post some lengthy and twisted semantic argument as opposed to focusing on the actual issue. Commence bullsh*t in 5...4...3...2...

I guess my mind just sees the base cause of this song as irrational family dynamics. Sorry to hear about your loss. Hopefully we'll at least agree upon the idea of more cleavage making the song better?

Tell me...what's the actual issue? The song? It's not really that good, imo. Dar Williams? I've seen her live...she's just okay, imo. I prefer Patty Griffin. Families need to get their act together and be civil to one another, lose the grudges, quit scorekeeping, and cover each other with a little bit of grace? Yeah...absolutely.



If he's not just a myth, he was most likely a mix of races. As written, he had "golden skin" so that could mean Mongol heritage; "blue black curly hair" so that could mean Assyrian descent. No one knows for sure and genetic and linguistic scientists disagree. At any rate, he would have descended from Noah of Ur and Japeth, Noah's son, who was the father of the Scythians. The "Anglos" (Anglo-Saxons) would have descended from Japeth, not the other way around.

lmao

His ashes are in an urn in Patna, India.

Not too far from where Jesus is buried, as it happens.

First of all, Jesus is not buried. He walked away from His Jerusalem tomb.

Second, I don't have a problem believing that there was a man named Siddhattha Gautama.

Do I believe that he was the incarnation of a god? No. Pleasant story though.

If I had the money, I'd take you to his tomb in India. Alas.

Buddhists don't believe he was the incarnation of a god either, so you're in good company.

That's what the Bhavishya Purana teaches.
Different religious takes on the same myth.
Who's to say?
I have one Jesus, you have a completely different Jesus.
Guess we'll find out for sure sooner or later.

How did I miss this post?

And I would know that there are remains of a body in the tomb/ashes in an urn...
and I would know that the remains/ashes were of Jesus of Nazareth...exactly how?

Tell ya what though...
you get the money and I'll consider going with you to check it out.

The Bhavishya Purana is a Hindu text. That would be like me trying to describe Jesus to you using the Q'uran.



Mine's the one who gave the Sermon on the Mount.

Here are some pictures:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60&catid=34

That's the same Jesus who said that He lived before Abraham, identifying Himself as God; and that He shared glory with God from before the foundation of the world; and that He would return to earth with glory and power, holding the keys to heaven and to hell; the same man that the Apostle Thomas acknowledged as Lord and God.

The words of C.S. Lewis:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg--or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice.

Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

Oh. Then I guess I disagree with C.S. Lewis. Jesus was a great moral teacher, regardless of whether he was the son of God. Was he a lunatic? Maybe. I don't think so though, especially in light of the time and place he lived. By modern standards, all of Jerusalem should have been committed. But that's not really a fair standard, is it?

...all of which is your interpretation of what someone else wrote about Jesus as opposed to the words of Jesus himself...

Round and round and round.

Now you've added C.S. Lewis to Paul the Salesman on the list of people whose word is the equal or indeed superior of Jesus himself. I figure Oral Roberts will make the list any day now.

Really? Regardless?

You believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher.
Jesus taught that He was/is the Son of God.
Do you believe that great moral teachers teach lies?

A lie would imply intentional deception. But to answer your question, no.

C. S. Lewis was silly in his assertion.

No, he didn't.

But that assertion does fit the business model.

Yes, He did.

No, he didn't.






...which totally ignores John 10:34, at which Jesus notes something that Buddha also did--"God" is in all of us, i.e. we all have the potential for enlightenment. So if we're all God, who cares if one guy says "I'm God"?

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? John 10:34-36

This is a theme Jesus returns to repeatedly; open your eyes, he's saying. It's in me, but it's in all of you, too.

Beavis, Beavis, Beavis.
Context is everything.
We have gone over this before.
I gave you the short version.
See if you can better comprehend the long version:

http://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html

Here we go again.

Jesus says something that is plain, clear, and doesn't fit the business model. "Your own scriptures say you're gods," Jesus says. "But it's a crime when I do it?"

Cue the business model apologists, who feel compelled to spend 10,000+ words trying to somehow shoehorn a plain and clear message into a completely unrelated but extremely lucrative box.

Just as there is a major difference between Son of God, and sons of God, so too there is a major difference between God (who said "I am God and there is no other") and gods.

You have no intention of comprehending, so I have no intention of casting my pearls before you except to say, it is obvious you have no understanding of scripture, of the continuity of scripture, and of scriptural context.

If anyone else is interested, the link explains the topic very clearly.

That's funny.

See, I started from where you are now. But I made the conscious decision not to try and base my entire worldview on logical fallacies. So instead of constant appeals to popularity ("millions and millions of people have believed this for years!") or authority ("Dr. Buttkiss, eminent Bible scholar, says this is so, so it must be!") or tradition ("they thought this was great in 1374, so it's good enough for me!") or begging the question ("God exists because it says so in the Bible, which was written by God!"), I have this tendency--it's odd, I know--to read things and figure them out.




COntinuing the theme of your entire post, which is ad hominem, another logical fallacy--"Beavis has no intention of comprehending" = Beavis doesn't agree with me and since I can't counter any of his points with actual logic I'll insult him instead by saying "I have no intention of casting my pearls before you" You, of course being swine, i.e. Beavis is a pig.

So you try and deflect the topic away from your argument, which is ridiculous (q.v. Occam's Razor if you want a purely logical reason why), by claiming that I am just being obstinate, when in fact all I've done is show you you're wrong, over and over and over. The only obstinacy involved here is your clinging to arguments that have already been shot down time and again.



I defy anyone besides you to read that link and say it is a clearer and more straightforward explanation than the one I've offered. The semantic and logical gymnastics involved in the post referenced by your link are so involved as to be just shy of meaningless; it's the Rube Goldberg approach to "proving" a point. "Well, I know we could just turn on the light switch manually, but then we wouldn't be able to involve the bowling ball, the model airplane and the chicken!"

Jesus, your Sermon on the Mount Jesus, tells a parable about that.

I've been where you are now.
I'm at the better destination.

As far as not casting my pearls, I'm following a direct order from Sermon on the Mount Jesus. And you've proven Him right. Jesus said do not give that which is holy (pearls, in this instance God's Word) to those who are unholy (that would be you) because the unholy just trample them and turn and attack you. Ta Da! Jesus is correct!

The link doesn't make sense to you because Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that you, a seed which has fallen by the wayside, will hear and not understand; and see and not perceive. He's right again!

There IS a clear, straight-forward explanation (like the link furnished), Beavis, but you have to be willing to work for it. It's not milk for babies, but it's meat for men. It requires studying the whole Word of God, OT and NT...as well as developing at least some understanding of ANE language and literature; some Greek; and also Jewish mishnah.
It's not for those who'd rather sit around rubbing a buddha's belly.

...back to the ad hominem! "Beavis says Buddhism makes sense, so anything he says about Christ can be discounted."

Circular logic is so 1106. The Middle Ages called--they want their lack of reason back!

By the way, this is also illustrative of the logical fallacy of begging the question.

You are assuming that your tortured interpretation is the only one, therefore this must apply to me...when it could just as easily apply to you.

I know how inconvenient logic is, but it's also inescapable, which is why Buddhism makes sense to me--and why, seen in the light of comparing accounts of Jesus from different cultures, I can say that Jesus was a Buddha too, a man who found his highest inner being and thus provided yet another example of the potential in all of us.

On the other hand, the notion that Jesus was a supernatural being who is also part of three beings who are actually one, who impregnated a human woman so he could commit suicide by cop and thus "save" us from something we had no part in creating to begin with, makes no sense whatsoever. Dancing around a campfire in animal skins and reading the future in the entrails of a goat makes as much sense.

The fact that the actual teachings of Jesus support the former without having to layer massive and intricate semantic architectures on top also shows Jesus' true nature.

Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned.

Against my better judgment, just chuckling that obstinacy is just another word for stubbornness. I'm just sayin'.

So, um, what did you think of the video/song?

Me? It was OK. I like the message in it.