By the way, all this being said, I don't necessarily disagree with you on much.
But, I don't think that it matters all that much whether Jesus existed or not. Considering that "Christ" is a title, not a name, it's theoreticalloy possible (some might say even necessary) to be a follower of Christ (a Christian, if you will) whether there was an historical Jesus or not.
To me, there are more important questions like:
-- What does it mean to be a Christian, exactly? (Some people seem to be really confused on this point, based on their behavior.) -- How should Christians deal with the apparently less than Christian legacy that has been created and continues to be created? (which you mention, above) -- Why are arguments presented that literal inpretation is the only interpretation? Ancient people's were a lot smarter than we give them credit for and were perfectly comfortable dealing with metaphor and parable. What makes us so uncomfortable in the 21st century? -- Why is it necessary to force change on others (for example, change laws to bolster particular religious views)? The description of Jesus' life in the Gospels didn't seem to suggest that necessity. Frankly, I think that in order to grow in any spiritual way it's necessary to have something against which to compete. It forces one to challenge assumptions and make personal decisions about how to implement abstractions.
I see some interesting things happening in the American Catholic church as a result of the pedophilia scandal that involve these sorts of questions. Eventually, I think they will spawn a movement that will go back to very early Christian roots -- smaller, community based, semi-insular groups of believers, less prosletyzing, less structure, and more Christianity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-04-05 22:20 (UTC)But, I don't think that it matters all that much whether Jesus existed or not. Considering that "Christ" is a title, not a name, it's theoreticalloy possible (some might say even necessary) to be a follower of Christ (a Christian, if you will) whether there was an historical Jesus or not.
To me, there are more important questions like:
-- What does it mean to be a Christian, exactly? (Some people seem to be really confused on this point, based on their behavior.)
-- How should Christians deal with the apparently less than Christian legacy that has been created and continues to be created? (which you mention, above)
-- Why are arguments presented that literal inpretation is the only interpretation? Ancient people's were a lot smarter than we give them credit for and were perfectly comfortable dealing with metaphor and parable. What makes us so uncomfortable in the 21st century?
-- Why is it necessary to force change on others (for example, change laws to bolster particular religious views)? The description of Jesus' life in the Gospels didn't seem to suggest that necessity. Frankly, I think that in order to grow in any spiritual way it's necessary to have something against which to compete. It forces one to challenge assumptions and make personal decisions about how to implement abstractions.
I see some interesting things happening in the American Catholic church as a result of the pedophilia scandal that involve these sorts of questions. Eventually, I think they will spawn a movement that will go back to very early Christian roots -- smaller, community based, semi-insular groups of believers, less prosletyzing, less structure, and more Christianity.
Oddly enough, a more Jewish model.
- Jeho