Opinion of Jesus Christ

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FF (Normal)

________

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What Al said in another thread about the nature of the missing of the point being significant and communicating quite a lot deserves, I think, to be reiterated here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What Al said in another thread about the nature of the missing of the point being significant and communicating quite a lot deserves, I think, to be reiterated here.

Does it? Even if we were to accept the biblical tradition of Jesus' life and works, we can still comment on whether that makes him a moral or perhaps not so moral a person.

Of course we can. I was referring specifically to Dibble's opinion of the doctrine of the Death and Resurrection. His answer to the thread question, and yours, are valid, although I disagree with them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FF (Normal)

________

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FF (Normal)

There is really no good reason to sincerely vote HP except a knee-jerk animus towards anything redolent of religion, which is far more revelatory about the voter than about Jesus.

No good reason at all? Surely you're being facetious...

Why would you assume that?

Because of the multitude of valid reasons to view Jesus Christ negatively?

You and I have very different definitions of 'multitude', 'valid', and/or 'negative'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So as long as you don't explicitly promote certain actions you're completely devoid of blame?

In general? Yes; if you don't do or advocate something it's not considered your fault.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A fairy tale character isn't something that one is 'nothing more than'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In my view, Jesus is nothing more than a fairy tale character regardless of his reality in whatever sense because of the worship of his legend.

What do you have against fairy tale characters, many of whom are more "real" than human beings who actually lived in terms of their impact on human life?  "Fictional" versus "Nonfictional" is a fairly irrelevant distinction.

Could you be so kind as to name a few?

Snow White is, in a very real sense, really a great deal more real than, for instance, Louie Gohmert. Likewise Princess Kaguya and her suitors are more real than almost the entire Japan Restoration Party and Movimento 5 Stelle combined. At this point it's an open question whether or not Vasilisa the Beautiful and Finist the Falcon are more real than Vladimir Putin.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would think the 'vast majority' of people who 'claim supernatural powers' these days, at least in most Western countries, would be priests from types of Christianity that believe in transubstantiation or some other form of Real Presence, wouldn't they? Admittedly that's less dramatic than actually claiming to be God. Or Avalokiteśvara.