There are so many good points from so many different angles. I just have to sit back and wonder what is the problem. Why is there so many versions and beliefs that all revert back to the same beginning? Every ancient religion on the face of this earth all have a “beginning story” with the first man and woman. They all have an ancient rendition of a “great flood”, and they all have some kind of “exodus story”. They all believe in the afterlife. They all believe in God, or gods, and even the ones that believe in gods believe in a head god, from the pack who is the supreme “God”. The problem is that none of them will sit still, or listen long enough to come to the realization, they all derived their beliefs from one universal source. The whole time having the arrogance that their belief and theirs alone is the only true interpretation of what God(s) wants, and that their religion is all that matters.

I have been reading a lot about Jesus from many different perspectives and I find that he, if not a divinity, was certainly a very charismatic individual, who had an ability to persuade, and he used those traits to lead his followers. What I feel is the most telling is that his own people (Jews) have always denied his divinity, and at the same time denounce him as an outcast.

The book I’m reading now is one of the many books about the bloodline of Christ. It tackles some of the misconceptions brought about by mistranslating the books of antiquities. Like the commandment commonly accepted as, though shalt not kill. The true translation, that more and more religious scholars concede is more accurate, though shalt not murder!! The word translated for ‘virgin’ actually means young woman in other texts. The word ‘heal’ (again from other texts) is to bring a lost soul to God. As is the words “raised from the dead”, was commonly used to mean, someone who was brought back into the fold after they have been cast out, or ex-communicated. They also tell of the story of his first “miracle”, when he turned the water to wine. They believed that the wine was sacred, and could only be served to the higher ranking members of their faith attending the ceremony. Water was all that could be served to the peons, and Jesus believed that this was not the will of God, but of men, so he saw to it that ‘all’ guests were accommodated. Thus the belief of a miracle as he, “changed the water to wine”. This turned out to be the beginning of a downhill slide, and after he impressed them so at the age of 12 in the temple? Making waves with any leader, self proclaimed, or other wise, is in hind sight a bad move. He still pressed on. Another thing that caught my interest was the use of the name Mary. A Mary was a lady in waiting for someone in direct succession to the thrown. There are several Mary’s in the New Testament? They also explained the practice of the double wedding ceremony, when a Mary would be married, there was a grace period to see that a child would/could be conceived. Once that was determined the second ceremony would confirm the union, otherwise the union was denied. They suggest that Jesus was conceived illegitimately (or not in the proper order), and they used the Immaculate Conception as a cover story. Of course I have seen in other places that the Immaculate Conception was never mentioned in the days of Jesus and was more likely a creation of the Catholics to bring more Pagans into the flock. No matter what is the true story, I find it hard to get over the fact that if Jesus was indeed the son of God, the Jews would have done everything in their power to see that he was protected. Instead they were rather relieved when it was put in their laps as to what was in store for the defiant, cult leader known as Jesus. I myself believe Jesus was the first Hippie, who believed in freedom, equal rights, and peace through responsible power (which is why I can’t understand why any Christian Conservative would accept Jesus as anything, other than a troublemaker)! I do believe in him, a 'man' of compassion, a visionary, and as a realist not swayed by the status quo!!

It is a sad state of affairs but I think that religion is what has rendered us incapable of living our lives in harmony with the rest of the world. Religion has stifled progress (socially and scientifically) for thousands of years. Religion is the epitome of discrimination, and is specifically responsible for everything that is evil! It is an undeniable fact that more people have been killed in the name of God, than for any other reason in history. That is wrong no matter how you wish to rationalize it!!

May your God bless you, or see to it that you are put in a special place!! Which ever you deserve!!

Buck S. N.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

I admire your passion for 'seeking' out the facts. But a personal relationship with God is NOT fact based. It's Faith based. To grasp that one must fully understand the true meaning of the word Faith.

Let's ask Mr. Webster:

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

It is what it is.

One thing I would like to comment on is that the Jews were not and still ARE not enemies of Christians. Jesus, even while he was being nailed to the cross, pointed out that the Jews cannot fully understand what they were doing (at the time of the crucification). The problem with the High Priest and other Jewish Leaders is that they tended to 'cherry pick' the scriptures. Christ called them on that and they resented him. Had they paid more attention to King David writing about how "He was Pierced for OUR transgressions" some 1000 years before Christ was even born, they may have not been so quick to NAIL the person to a cross that they think is a false prophet. By doing so (crucifying), they fulfilled scripture that King David wrote 1000 years before it happened. Another tid bit. Why would King David say something like that? It's not like they had Roman Crucification when David was in rule.........

__________________
II Cor 4:18

My personal beliefs or faiths had little to do with my post. My post was more of a literary observation.

The “cherry picking” (I like that) as you stated is what is wrong with most religions and not just something the Jews do/did. To pick and choose the scriptures at will to make their points, by taking them out of context, or even to re-define them, is a dangerous precedence and should not be taken lightly by those who are spiritual. That is what con-men, and thieves practice. Mis-leading, or what I like to call, out an out lying, does little to maintain integrity on any subject.

From my own experiences with those of the Jewish belief, it is my opinion that they did not hate Jesus as much as they feared him. His ideas were detrimental to what they felt was traditional (conservative), and he had a following. Even 2000 years later they have had the time to ponder the role they played in this bit of history, and they still do not believe that Jesus was the son of God! As I stated before, those are his people?

I have a very religious upbringing, but I am turned off by the hypocrisy of most churches. Church leaders who believe their sins are justified if it is done in the name of their ‘god’, is a major problem. They accept this as a necessary evil to keep the, what they refer too as immoral, in check! I see it for what it really is, discrimination, and hate.

Thanks for the feedback it was very interesting.

Buck S. N.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

BuckNaked, just live and let live. Let people believe in what they want to, it shouldnt bother you.

Trust me, your preachin to the choir! I have no trouble with anyone’s belief, unless it becomes a roadblock against individual rights, or is forced upon others through legislation. If a human needs some type of spiritual guidance so that they can live a good life, and not hurt, or steal from others, I’m for it all the way. But if my ‘pursuit of happiness’ doesn’t fit the moral outline “YOU” accept as acceptable for your own pursuit, that’s not my problem, it’s “YOURS”. And you (not necessarily you) should be ashamed of yourself! Our kids are in a region of the world that has been fighting for thousands of years, with all sides confident that they are doing the will of god. Now we are over there, and the president (and others) honestly believes we are doing gods will also? That should scare the hell out of everybody! Can’t we just do it because it is the right thing to do, if it is indeed the right thing to do? Are we ever going to evolve beyond this? It’s the strong movement of the ‘religious right’ that has me concerned. Rather than teach, and lead by example, they are leading by imposing, here in lies the dilemma!!

Politically speaking;

‘We the People’, are loosing our constitutional rights on a daily basis. Our so-called representatives do not even read the bills they are being told how to vote on, if they vote at all. I have serious reservations if they have ever sat down with a dictionary and read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Both parties think that the words in the Constitution are up for interpretation, and they each support the true translation. The words in the constitution especially the early submissions were beautifully laid out with language that was precise but simplistic, and should be an example for legislators today. Unfortunately lawyers (AKA Politicians) prefer complicated paragraphs, uncommon verbiage, and contradicting fine print. More manipulative tactics, to insure that they, the rich/privileged, always have the advantage.

Amendment I; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Dictionary meaning; Our elected representatives do not have the authority to make any laws considering a religious order of society or to recognize a religious group for social, economical, or political leadership. They are also bound to allow the individuals right to choose the religion they wish to practice. Since individuals are allowed free choice, they are also entitled the right to not be affiliated, or be imposed upon.

In other words, Congress will maintain a clear separation between what is the governing body and what is religion.

It should not be up for discussion. It’s just another political smoke screen. We do not need an army of lawyers, clergy, and politicians with an agenda, to try and change the intent of the written words. A dictionary and a Jr. High student should be able to interpret it properly, why can’t our government made up of supposedly educated adults. The intent of the amendment is easily explained. The founding fathers had just released our country from the bonds of hundreds of years of religious control, punishment, and domination from tyrannical church leaders who believe their own sins are justified if it is done in the name of their ‘god’. They accept this as a necessary evil to keep the, what they refer too as immoral, in check! So to keep the moral in check the founding fathers wisely chose (in the very “first” amendment) to keep the church, all churches, separate from the governing body, and thank God!!! It is a moral imperative that this does not change! Our individual liberties and our freedom of choice (what little we still have) depend on it!

On the other hand the amendment states nothing that would authorize the government to shun or disrupt in the peaceful practice of any religion.

Isn’t that what it says?

Buck S. N.

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

I used to do that until we got an Evangelist In Chief in the White House spending tax money on faith-based initiatives. NO TAX MONEY FOR RELIGION UNTIL RELIGION PAYS TAXES. And then 9/11, and now the Iraq mess. Everybody's religion is now my political business because tho I let live, these yayhoos don't let others live.

I've had enough of that rot. Live and let live except for those who don't let live--those who don't let live shouldn't live either.

Tolerance is NOT an entitlement program for the intolerant.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog