reply to post by randyvs
I think you missed it, what Titen-Sxull
meant, with the "Deist" hypothesis (for it was only that...maybe more of an analogy, but not
Point is....YOU seemed to like it (for, as an analogy, it WAS good), but your "titan-skull" (
) lost it when you immediately diverted into the
"christ" worship thing...loses all coherence at that point.
I am sorry to tell you --- are you sitting down?
The guy commonly known today as "christ", if it was even just one individual (more likely an amalgam of many) was/were....HUMAN, and not "divine"
in any way, shape, form or origination.
Sorry to be so blunt.
The concept, whether the actual person existed as described or not, IS laudable, there is no doubt. Therefore, this "revisionist" effort that was
undertaken ( aka the "new" testament ) was a valiant effort to (at great risk to prevailing other
'powers-that-be" at the time, in
that era) ... a valiant effort to create a SECT that branched off away from the "hellfire and brimstone" attitude of the 'original'
bible..."bible 1.0", if you will....
The "new" testament can be considered the 'beta
' bible version...sleeker, streamlined, more user friendly. It was brilliant of the writers
who contributed, really --- bringing it 'down-to-earth', so to speak.
(However, as I run with the 'beta' analogy....it became victim to the age old problem of too many cooks...AND, it was adaptable enough to be
subverted by others, who have strayed from the original intent...because it was so vague, it was open to vast interpretations.)
Instead of this ephemeral 'something' in the sky, they created the icon of a real, living breathing person --- someone they could sell better to
the ignorant masses, as they figured the masses could relate better to the 'tangible'...even if they never actually met the person in physical
Do you see what a clever, clever marketing job they did?? Even before the concept of "marketing" even existed...at least, not in codified terms
anyway ( like, there weren't any Universtiy-level courses on the subject..
If all of that rubs you the wrong way...well, sorry. I know I
was very unhappy when I learned that Santa Claus wasn't really
real....I remember I pretended not to know, for several years, to keep the extra christmas presents coming....!
The myth-makers behind the "christ" story weren't very original, actually. I'll try to find the link, but I've seen plenty of sources that
compare many other ancient human belief systems, that pre-dated "christ"....the story is pretty much the same, in each:
---"virgin" birth (or other 'miraculous' formation)
---great sagacity (wisdom) exhibited
---very gentle nature, the "turn the other cheek" attitude (and lesson)
---the iconic figure is killed (sacrificied) in some horrific manner
---ressurection, and the "mystique" and legend is passed on down for generations.
Same ole, same ole....
Humanity still has a lot of growing up to do, and casting off quaint notions that most "religions" try to infect the minds of people with is a good
place to start.
[edit on 9 August 2010 by weedwhacker]