RT
I get the impression your views about Jesus are distorted by the way he has been appropriated by the churches.
Somewhat, but mostly from reading the bible, I give equal weight to all of Jesus, quotes; so when he does things like...
killing a fig tree from spite.
Cursing at the Jewish bankers.
Threatening to withhold his healing powers due to a person's race or sex.
Having his people steal a donkey for him to ride.
Telling people that they must leave their family members unburied if they want to follow him.
Telling people that they were wrong because they did not kill their disobedient child as written in the Jewish laws.
When Jesus does these things I get a different view of the character.
RT
Like you I have always been skeptical and highly dubious about mainstream Christianity, but we differ in that I believe the gospels contain a very useful story for the modern world.
Some of the stories have useful messages in the modern world, but so do other myths and stories. Just because a story might have some important message is no reason to build a "religion" from it.
This is the way I see it.
If you want to believe that Jesus was a real guy and preached in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, despite the total lack of evidence, that's fine.
In my opinion though, you might as well worship Hercules, because both have identical evidence to prove their existence.
If you want to preach that the bible has important lessons in it and that it should be preserved for that reason, I will not argue the point; but like I wrote earlier, other stories have those same messages, and many are better written and more inspiring.
It's when you insist that this material must be maintained as a religion that I get all icky and prickly.
Religions breed conflict because not everyone has the same worldview, ethics or future goals. Once someone claims to have all the answers and they do not coincide with another's answers conflict is inevitable.
You insist that the bible holds important lessons and information for the modern world; well, they were never important for me, so they can't be that important, certainly not worth creating another faction of Christianity over.
RT
This is a very complicated issue, picking up questions of cosmology and eschatology. My view is that Jesus could see that the world was not ready for his vision, but that the kernel of his theory of time, ie his claim in Matthew 24-25 that the gospel would be preached to the whole inhabited earth before people were ready to seriously implement his ideas, gives a solid critique for our current global predicament.
And I think that Jesus as a fictional character did not see anything, and that the meaning you derive from those passages is only possible because of the modern knowledge you possess. I seriously doubt that the message you see was the intent of the original writing.
RT
The question is whether the concept of God can be reconciled with scientific knowledge. I argue it can be reconciled, by imagining God as the purposive context for human evolution, and further that this scientific theology presents a useful organizing principle for a transformative politics and is compatible with the Biblical doctrine of love.
If you want to redefine god, you are free to do so, but I do not think that many people are going to accept that version of their supreme sky wizard.
RT
Come on Frank, Jesus entered Jerusalem as king of the Jews riding on a donkey, although the messianic tradition said he would ride a warhorse. Judas Iscariot for one was incensed by Jesus' pacifism, and by his steadfast stance in support of the beatitudes.
The Jesus character said several things that fly in the face of a pacifistic ideal.
For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.
-Matthew 10:35-36
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
-Luke 14:26
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.
-Matthew 10:34
But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
-Luke 22:36
And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
-Matthew. 24:6-7
And I will kill her children with death...
-The red letter edition of the King James Bible -Revelation 2:23
Finally Jesus says this in regard to the Old Testament...
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
-Matthew: 5:17-18
It seems to me that wars and killing are perfectly acceptable to Jesus.
RT
The story of the virgin birth is a way the Constantinian Roman church used to suppress the message of Jesus. The virgin birth story is not true, so your potshot is somewhat irrelevant. I view the Holy Spirit as the sense of connection we have to cosmic grace, as a physical product of human spirituality
Well I never heard of that version of the Holy Spirit... Again you are free to redefine these terms as you see fit, but that does not change the definition for the average believer, or the actions of that entity in the story.
RT
'Blessed are the poor in spirit' is a way of saying that the idolatry of material possessions is no way to happiness
Or it could simply be the writer's attempt to smooth talk the crowd. Or it could simply be wrong.
I have been to many poor countries (Guatemala, Belize, Honduras), and seen the poverty you speak of first hand. I saw no examples of a "blessed spirit", I did see a desperate and defeated people living a miserable existence. The only reason they do not resort to crime is because their neighbors are their close relatives and have no more than they do.
RT
My reading of the meaning of the gospels suggests you are making a very big and very wrong call in saying Christ gives us nothing to build on.
And I think that by attempting to maintain a historically destructive religion you are doing our species a disservice.
Later