All evidence that I have studied tells me ... that
A) Yes, there
was an actual historical personage,
Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to
at least 72BC, if not longer (there are
good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular whre there is no
priesthood or church agenda to maintain the
status quo).
and
B) Jesus of Nazareth remains
unquestionably, the
least understood figure in recent history.
Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and
"the Christ" were in fact
two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30
was "the Christ"). So between them,
which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...
If Jesus after age 30
was essentially - "the Christ," then we can at least gloss over the
fact, to some, or
notion, to others, that there was a distinction ... though the issue is an important one.
Son of God? What would it take, for a
reasonable person ... to face this issue from an
unbiased viewpoint, and consider evidence that
every human being is in fact, a
Son of God? Relativism? Is
that what we're left with?
Then
hooray! Yes, I would
welcome such a refreshing look ... at our
human nature.

Relatively speaking, we stand on a higher rung of the
Ladder than a
fish, or an ant. Yet to
God the Father, I suspect we
do seem largely - as ants. Think about that, next time you feel inclined to step on one, or squash a spider, kill a fly, smash a bee. As George Harrison said:
"It's easier to tell a lie than it is to tell the truth
It's easier to kill a fly than it is to turn it loose" -- See Yourself
The wise man can see, or in the very least
knows, that the Divine dwells within
every form of life. The skeptic will argue -
that all is form, and thus, that there
is no god. We do not all have to be mystics, to recognize intuitively that the mystic is aware of something that the materialist is not. Nor does it take a genius to figure out ...
that there's something wrong with the picture - which we've all been taught in Sunday School. I knew that
when I was in Sunday School.
What upsets some of the people around here (and elsewhere), is that they cannot quite understand that the error has often been one of
omission rather than of
commission. And when someone boldly steps up to suggest what might have been
omitted (
sometimes intentionally, which
is actually the committing of a sin, while other times, an innocent enought mistake) ... we find that they are
banned from the CR forums, or that they are
hounded and taken to issue
at every call. One learns quickly to choose one's words wisely, but then one finds ... that it is often not
truth which (wo)men wish to hear, but what
feels good,
sounds good, and
is familiar.
And yes, sometimes we can speak truth in such a way that is
disturbing to few, yet more often, it is
upsetting to several, to say the least. And sometimes it is
anathema to those who are either
committed to maintaining the
status quo, for one reason or another ... or it is
heresy, to those who cannot accept
any viewpoint contrary to their own. Not in
making peace, or
finding common ground, are such souls interested, but only in
holding their own. And thus, even if I say,
let us meet on friendly territory, I am met with suspicion, fear, pre-judgement and consternation. After all,
what if we are proven wrong (though that is
not the point, or intent), or
what if we find ourself to be in error? What then? What will happen to our house of cards? If the very
foundation crumbles, then
what is left?
Says theology, Hell! Or even worse,
the fear of the unknown, and perhaps
nothing frightens us more - than that! What, then, does it matter -
what others - might happen to know, think, feel, or believe about
Jesus of Nazareth, or the
Buddha, or
anyone else who has been so sorely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and
martyred by this world? The consensus is already in.
And we know how things really stand, now don't we?
Sol Invictus ... (now, and always)
The Apostate