Jesus the man or Jesus the Son of God

[High Lord Tolkien]

I look to Jesus as a man, a teacher, a good example of the way all humans should be.

I don't believe he was the literal "Son of God" but rather a spiritual son (with a little "s").
That is a better message, that we are all sons and daughters of God and that we are all brothers and sisters to each other.

The idea that Jesus was divine takes away the impact or the enormity of his life's teachings.
"Jesus died on the cross" to me just gets a "So what, he was the Son of God. Now he gets to do all kinds of fantastic supernatural stuff. Not a real big deal"
Someone who holds all of creation in his hands and lives in eternity had a tough time for a few days? Big whoop. Plenty of people die in the world every day under worse conditions than what killed him.
I admit it, I have class envy to the infinite degree when it comes to Jesus being the literal Son of God.

What if he was just a man though?

"Miracles"

His birth.
Lets say there was some kind of issue.
That it wasn't just retroactively changed after the fact to make it fit the "divine" prophecy.
If Mary got pregnant out of wedlock back in those days it was a probable death sentence for her. If Joseph loved her enough to marry her and protect her despite this....that's a powerful and beautiful message.

The miracles that Jesus performed also takes away from the greatness of the man.
What if instead of "miracles" they were lessons of how we can all help each other?

The fish and bread miracle at the wedding. What if Jesus just got others to share what they had being unwilling to do before?
Crappy miracle but great life lesson.

Making the lame walk.
He was a carpenter. What if he just crafted crutches for the men who had nothing to help them walk.

Making the blind see.
What if it was spiritual blindness. What if he merely opened their hearts and souls instead of divine LASIK surgery?

Healing lepers.
What if he merely showed them and others their worth their value of being alive in the world.

Bringing back the dead.
Maybe it wasn't the literal dead but bringing back the spiritually dead.

And so on and so on....
No tricks, no illusions, no lies, no super ninja radioactive God powers.
Just a good decent man.

A good decent man would have taught his followers the Our Father.
The Our Father is a simple good prayer. The only one that actually makes any sense to me. It's basically telling God that we're trying to be good and to thank him for helping us out.
No fire, no brimstone no "gays are bad"......

He was adored by his followers and yet he humbled himself and washed their feet as a lesson for them to be humble.

He taught to turn the other cheek but by his example also taught that sometimes you have to display some force as with the money changers at a Temple. Not to let people walk all over you. Be strong and kind at the same time.

His preaching could have been radical enough to have made him a target of the Pharisees and his followers could have grown large enough to threaten Roman rule.
Not by breaking some "Don't call yourself God" rule.

Dying on the cross he forgave those that put him to death.
That's some pretty hardcore goodness right there.
Is it as meaningful if Jesus was divine?
If Jesus had some sort of God-like insight that no one else on the planet had?
I think that kind of ruins the whole thing actually.

His crucifixion and death could have been a product of the politics of the times not some grand cosmic plan that was set into motion thousands of years before his birth.

And the Resurrection; the cornerstone, the most important thing and the very foundation of the Christian faith.
What if....what if nothing.
It remains today as much a matter of faith as it did before and after Jesus' time.
But I don't think it would have mattered to Jesus the man.
Just being decent seemed to be the most important, imho.


I left a lot of out Jesus' life. On purpose (we could spend forever debating and quoting Bible passages). This is my post and those other quotes and miracles matter little to me.
lets also try not to debate Bible quotes and keep it more geared towards what it would mean to you if Jesus wasn't "divine" and just a man.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Dying on the cross he forgave those that put him to death.
That's some pretty hardcore goodness right there.
Is it as meaningful if Jesus was divine?
If Jesus had some sort of God-like insight that no one else on the planet had?
I think that kind of ruins the whole thing actually.

Why does Christ's divinity ruin it?

Originally, God and Man were in perfect communion--we were like the angels, only with mortal bodies of flesh. Because of Free Will, we broke our connection with God. The only way to repair that disconnect was for God to become mortal, like Man, and then die. He gave up His life for you--that is hardcore goodness. His death also restored the connection and repaired the symmetry--once again, we are able to be in a personal relationship with Him.

It isn't any more complex than that.

And the Resurrection; the cornerstone, the most important thing and the very foundation of the Christian faith.
What if....what if nothing.
It remains today as much a matter of faith as it did before and after Jesus' time.
But I don't think it would have mattered to Jesus the man.
Just being decent seemed to be the most important, imho.

Yes, it is a matter of faith. Unfortunately, being decent isn't good enough to reestablish a relationship with God.

We still have Free Will, though--believe what you wish.

[lucimay]

Why does Christ's divinity ruin it?

Originally, God and Man were in perfect communion--we were like the angels, only with mortal bodies of flesh. Because of Free Will, we broke our connection with God. The only way to repair that disconnect was for God to become mortal, like Man, and then die. He gave up His life for you--that is hardcore goodness. His death also restored the connection and repaired the symmetry--once again, we are able to be in a personal relationship with Him.

It isn't any more complex than that.


so...where'd you get this version of that "he gave up his life for you" bit?
this whole disconnection from god bit?
why was the only way to repair the disconnect from god (or...yahweh more specifically, because i assume, tho i may be wrong, thats the god we're talking about) for him to become mortal, incarnate into a physical manifestation, and then die?
is this your interpretation of stuff you've read or been told or is this written down somewhere in these words or what.

reason i ask is because this has always been a sticking point for me.
the whole "died for you" thing. how did him incarnating into physical form
and dying repair the connection?
how did we get disconnected?

i am NOT being sarcastic. this is a real query.

[Worm of Despite]

I look to Jesus as a man, a teacher, a good example of the way all humans should be.

I don't believe he was the literal "Son of God" but rather a spiritual son (with a little "s").
That is a better message, that we are all sons and daughters of God and that we are all brothers and sisters to each other.

I guess that is a better message, but it's not his intention. It's like saying Tolkien wanted the Hobbits to be gay.

I love getting a warm feeling thinking all the Hindus, Muslims, and various other religions are all "really not that different" and we're all just different means to same end, but real believers of these religions will tell you and point out to you places where there Gods say, "Nope. Just our religion. The rest are DAMNED. As are their silly followers. Kill them."

Let's quote Jesus:

"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

That sounds pretty plain and simple. You're only going to go through him. A "teacher" or lowercase s spiritual guru wouldn't be so obstinate. This isn't even obstinacy, though: it's saying, "Hey. I am the World. I am TRUTH." Pretty extreme and absolute.

[Vraith]

I look to Jesus as a man, a teacher, a good example of the way all humans should be.

I don't believe he was the literal "Son of God" but rather a spiritual son (with a little "s").
That is a better message, that we are all sons and daughters of God and that we are all brothers and sisters to each other.

I guess that is a better message, but it's not his intention. It's like saying Tolkien wanted the Hobbits to be gay.

I love getting a warm feeling thinking all the Hindus, Muslims, and various other religions are all "really not that different" and we're all just different means to same end, but real believers of these religions will tell you and point out to you places where there Gods say, "Nope. Just our religion. The rest are DAMNED. As are their silly followers. Kill them."

Let's quote Jesus:

"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

That sounds pretty plain and simple. You're only going to go through him. A "teacher" or lowercase s spiritual guru wouldn't be so obstinate. This isn't even obstinacy, though: it's saying, "Hey. I am the World. I am TRUTH." Pretty extreme and absolute.

Yea. Z said elsewhere, and it's as succinct, simple and clear as it can be in describing this..."the differences are literal"...the generalities of moral/religious/meaning are reconcilable. The particular details are not. People do not, generally, kill over "God is Good," or "Good" as concepts.
They kill over names, behaviors, particulars.

And related to Lucimay's comment, but a bit [heh...a lot] more judgmental:
I can't imagine anything more counterproductive, meaningless, and more likely to lead to future bloodshed than to be the Son of God and die as he did. Any ordinary person can sacrifice for someone else. Sometimes it is even meaningful. When a divinity dies...and hey, guess what, he didn't really die, he can't, he's divine...that's not a powerful message, that's just trite. [when I'm really ranting/annoyed, I find it metaphysically, metaphorically, and literally offensive].
A real message would be if he were still hanging around in some shack somewhere, still 30 years old, and still helping the sick, the meek, the poor.

[Avatar]

Good post HLT. I have a lot less problem with Jesus the moral teacher with a lot of important things to say about how we can be better as people, as a society, etc. than I do with a supernatural being.

"Jesus died on the cross" to me just gets a "So what, he was the Son of God. Now he gets to do all kinds of fantastic supernatural stuff. Not a real big deal"
Someone who holds all of creation in his hands and lives in eternity had a tough time for a few days? Big whoop. Plenty of people die in the world every day under worse conditions than what killed him.
I admit it, I have class envy to the infinite degree when it comes to Jesus being the literal Son of God.

This is something that has always struck me...Jesus wasn't risking anything by coming to earth or being mortal or whatever it was. He had a guaranteed trip back to heaven.

--A

[High Lord Tolkien]

Let's quote Jesus:

"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

That sounds pretty plain and simple. You're only going to go through him. A "teacher" or lowercase s spiritual guru wouldn't be so obstinate. This isn't even obstinacy, though: it's saying, "Hey. I am the World. I am TRUTH." Pretty extreme and absolute.

This quote is also interesting.
Explain what it means to you.
What is Jesus saying exactly?


Jesus the Son of God is saying some powerful metaphysical stuff.

Jesus the man is saying the same thing just in more general terms.

"My example is the way, my words are the truth, my life is the type of life you should be living, Heaven can only be reached by living this way."

Then of course there is Heaven itself.
Heaven on Earth?
Some spiritual place?
Both also apply.

[Worm of Despite]

Let's quote Jesus:

"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

That sounds pretty plain and simple. You're only going to go through him. A "teacher" or lowercase s spiritual guru wouldn't be so obstinate. This isn't even obstinacy, though: it's saying, "Hey. I am the World. I am TRUTH." Pretty extreme and absolute.

This quote is also interesting.
Explain what it means to you.
What is Jesus saying exactly?


Jesus the Son of God is saying some powerful metaphysical stuff.

Jesus the man is saying the same thing just in more general terms.

"My example is the way, my words are the truth, my life is the type of life you should be living, Heaven can only be reached by living this way."

Then of course there is Heaven itself.
Heaven on Earth?
Some spiritual place?
Both also apply.

Of course, you're totally free to interpret how you wish, but I'm just saying I think if Jesus were alive he'd be like, "You're getting it wrong. You have to believe in me or no heaven!"

To me, it seems it's pretty obvious he's talking exclusively about himself when it comes to reaching heaven/God. And I don't think Jesus sees himself as two separate people but the Son of God and just that.

So in the end, for me, I don't see him speaking in code. He's pretty clear that he's the Messiah, and it's his way or the highway. He had some good teachings, but if you actually want to follow Jesus the Man/God/Whatever then you have to accept he's the son of God. Were he a philosopher like Siddhartha Gautama or anyone else, there'd be no absolute request for such thing, but the New Testament makes it pretty clear he's a deity to be worshiped.

Historically this is true too. In this time, for the Jews, there were lots of beliefs of the end times and Messiahs coming forward. They never said, "I have some teachings here." They said, "This is from God, I'm from God, follow me!"

There's nothing wrong with liking his morals or agreeing with his precepts, but accepting the person, for me, requires acknowledging he is deific. Following Adolf Hitler would require similar beliefs of his "Leadership principal" and other ideology. You can't just say, "Hitler was a good fellow in conversation," because that leaves out a lot of other terrible things.

[Avatar]

Yes, the meaning of it seems pretty clear. It's not a message that I really like.

But, on the other hand, how do we know he actually said that?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, Jesus said it. But it was taken wrong. When asked about it, he said, "I am not the only way. My teachings are. Love."

[High Lord Tolkien]

Let's quote Jesus:

"I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

That sounds pretty plain and simple. You're only going to go through him. A "teacher" or lowercase s spiritual guru wouldn't be so obstinate. This isn't even obstinacy, though: it's saying, "Hey. I am the World. I am TRUTH." Pretty extreme and absolute.

This quote is also interesting.
Explain what it means to you.
What is Jesus saying exactly?


Jesus the Son of God is saying some powerful metaphysical stuff.

Jesus the man is saying the same thing just in more general terms.

"My example is the way, my words are the truth, my life is the type of life you should be living, Heaven can only be reached by living this way."

Then of course there is Heaven itself.
Heaven on Earth?
Some spiritual place?
Both also apply.

Of course, you're totally free to interpret how you wish, but I'm just saying I think if Jesus were alive he'd be like, "You're getting it wrong. You have to believe in me or no heaven!"

To me, it seems it's pretty obvious he's talking exclusively about himself when it comes to reaching heaven/God. And I don't think Jesus sees himself as two separate people but the Son of God and just that.

So in the end, for me, I don't see him speaking in code. He's pretty clear that he's the Messiah, and it's his way or the highway. He had some good teachings, but if you actually want to follow Jesus the Man/God/Whatever then you have to accept he's the son of God. Were he a philosopher like Siddhartha Gautama or anyone else, there'd be no absolute request for such thing, but the New Testament makes it pretty clear he's a deity to be worshiped.

I'm not making the case that he is or is not the son of god.
My thoughts on this thread are that much of what he taught is more than enough to follow if he was just a regular man.
I didn't mean to imply that he was speaking in code either.

I was trying to show how his words would be interpreted if he was just a man.
And that the message would be.....better I think.
More thoughtful and meaningful.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Yes, the meaning of it seems pretty clear. It's not a message that I really like.

But, on the other hand, how do we know he actually said that?

--A

That's another thing that always makes me shake my head. Passionately quoting something that someone said 2000 years ago that was only "recorded" by word of mouth.

Say what you will about Muhammad, at least he wrote it all down.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

so...where'd you get this version of that "he gave up his life for you" bit?
this whole disconnection from god bit?
why was the only way to repair the disconnect from god (or...yahweh more specifically, because i assume, tho i may be wrong, thats the god we're talking about) for him to become mortal, incarnate into a physical manifestation, and then die?
is this your interpretation of stuff you've read or been told or is this written down somewhere in these words or what.

reason i ask is because this has always been a sticking point for me.
the whole "died for you" thing. how did him incarnating into physical form
and dying repair the connection?
how did we get disconnected?

i am NOT being sarcastic. this is a real query.

I spent my younger years believing...then I spent nearly 20 years not believing...and now I am back to believing after being given a life-changing second chance (no, I will not go into detail about what that second chance was). So, the answer is "both"--people have told it to me but I also figued it out for myself.

Let me first jump ahead to answer how the disconnect happened. Man is in the Garden of Eden--not an actual physical place, mind you, but more of an allegorical "state of being"--where he lives and can have conversations with God directly. Man disobeys one of God's commands (the details are already known to you and are thus not important) and this causes a disconnect--Man is now out of fellowship with God and this ends Man's initial incorruptable nature (we were more like angels at that time, thus immortal). Man is now subject to Death, whereas God is not.

Now move forward to God's plan to repair the disconnection. Since Man was initially like God but is now susceptible to death, God must become like Man in order to repair the symmetry. So...God sends Christ to become incarnate in flesh then die. Because the symmetry is now repaired, it is possible for Man and God to have a personal relationship again.

You asked; I answered. What you do now with that information is up to you.

[Worm of Despite]

Yes, Jesus said it. But it was taken wrong. When asked about it, he said, "I am not the only way. My teachings are. Love."

Is that in the Hebrew translation, or did the director of the Bible interview Jesus after the end credits?

Love, yes, but so far as I can see Jesus implies love + recognizing my suzerainty or eternal damnation. It's hard for me to divorce that message from his claim of Godhood. It's cool if others can, but why use his message? Epictetus said the same thing. It's not as if it's so unique: do good things, love each other. Was that so alien, even back then? I know times were harsh, but I've never understood how people seem to think Jesus invented the caring individual. Maybe discovered or gave voice to it, like Sgt. Pepper's did for Psychedelia, but I digress.

It's just interesting to me: this person we know pretty much zilch about written about 200 or so years after his death from not even first-hand sources, and we're trying to make concrete guesses as to what he really said or who he was.

As far as I know he's the first meme. And the most successful since Mitochondrial Eve.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes, Jesus said it. But it was taken wrong. When asked about it, he said, "I am not the only way. My teachings are. Love."

Is that in the Hebrew translation, or did the director of the Bible interview Jesus after the end credits?

Love, yes, but so far as I can see Jesus implies love + recognizing my suzerainty or eternal damnation. It's hard for me to divorce that message from his claim of Godhood. It's cool if others can, but why use his message? Epictetus said the same thing. It's not as if it's so unique: do good things, love each other. Was that so alien, even back then? I know times were harsh, but I've never understood how people seem to think Jesus invented the caring individual. Maybe discovered or gave voice to it, like Sgt. Pepper's did for Psychedelia, but I digress.

It's just interesting to me: this person we know pretty much zilch about written about 200 or so years after his death from not even first-hand sources, and we're trying to make concrete guesses as to what he really said or who he was.

As far as I know he's the first meme. And the most successful since Mitochondrial Eve.

That is why it is all a matter of faith. You will have to choose for yourself whether you believe or not.

Try not to think of it as "love + recognizing my suzerainty or eternal damnation"; instead, think of it as "love and accept that I came to die for you or be eternally separated from God". The problem many people have with Christianity at its core is that they think it is all about God trying to contol us or force us to do something that He wants. If God wanted us to be nothing more than puppets or playthings then He wouldn't have given us Free Will.

I don't know when or why people came up with their hateful view of Christianity--of course, the people like the WBC don't help the situation any--but how they interpret it is unfortunately mistaken.

Nevertheless...as I have already said I will only present the information; I won't push it on anyone. You have to decide for yourself what you will believe.

[Worm of Despite]

Yes, Jesus said it. But it was taken wrong. When asked about it, he said, "I am not the only way. My teachings are. Love."

Is that in the Hebrew translation, or did the director of the Bible interview Jesus after the end credits?

Love, yes, but so far as I can see Jesus implies love + recognizing my suzerainty or eternal damnation. It's hard for me to divorce that message from his claim of Godhood. It's cool if others can, but why use his message? Epictetus said the same thing. It's not as if it's so unique: do good things, love each other. Was that so alien, even back then? I know times were harsh, but I've never understood how people seem to think Jesus invented the caring individual. Maybe discovered or gave voice to it, like Sgt. Pepper's did for Psychedelia, but I digress.

It's just interesting to me: this person we know pretty much zilch about written about 200 or so years after his death from not even first-hand sources, and we're trying to make concrete guesses as to what he really said or who he was.

As far as I know he's the first meme. And the most successful since Mitochondrial Eve.

That is why it is all a matter of faith. You will have to choose for yourself whether you believe or not.

Try not to think of it as "love + recognizing my suzerainty or eternal damnation"; instead, think of it as "love and accept that I came to die for you or be eternally separated from God". The problem many people have with Christianity at its core is that they think it is all about God trying to contol us or force us to do something that He wants. If God wanted us to be nothing more than puppets or playthings then He wouldn't have given us Free Will.

Not sure where free will is mentioned in the Bible. And sure, Jesus is compassionate and we all make choices; and I can understand a hell reserved for rapists and those who commit unjust wrong on others; but I refuse to believe in a "benevolent" God who condemns me to hell for not believing in him. As long as I'm good that shouldn't matter.

In fact I'd say it's pretty obtuse. Also: the loving God is also the vengeful God. Interpretations of who or what God equals is pretty wide-ranging. Which preacher is right: the brimstone one from the Puritan age or the new movement of the loving God where none of us want to hear about how we're condemned from the outset (that might mess up our good feeling about the football game tonight).

I personally, also, can't believe in God when there are so many. Which one? It's like a room full of people all saying they're true. Either one really is telling the truth (fat chance) or they're all lies. And why wouldn't God make it more obvious which religion is right if he's really out there? And why are we in God's image? You're telling me the creator of the Universe, out of hundreds of billions of galaxies, chose us to look like Him, a small mote of dust floating on the inner arm of a barred spiral galaxy?

Why just this planet? Certainly there must be others, but the Bible sure doesn't mention them (it's obviously a product of its time when it comes to explaining thing). But I'm quite sure religion will adapt when we find out there are equally intelligent (or more so) intelligent beings out there, even if they're completely left field of what we expect life to look like. That's the great adaptable aspect of religion, and it fits lock-step with its creators, one of the most (if not the most) adaptable species on this planet.

In the end we're given a series of choices in life concerning what to believe in, any one of which could be wrong and no instruction manual. Well, guess he was too busy structuring the atom?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Not sure where free will is mentioned in the Bible. And sure, Jesus is compassionate and we all make choices; and I can understand a hell reserved for rapists and those who commit unjust wrong on others; but I refuse to believe in a "benevolent" God who condemns me to hell for not believing in him. As long as I'm good that shouldn't matter.

In fact I'd say it's pretty obtuse. Also: the loving God is also the vengeful God. Interpretations of who or what God equals is pretty wide-ranging. Which preacher is right: the brimstone one from the Puritan age or the new movement of the loving God where none of us want to hear about how we're condemned from the outset (that might mess up our good feeling about the football game tonight).

Like I have said, believe whatever you wish. I make no judgements about your beliefs.

The Bible doesn't talk about computers, either, but that doesn't make them any less real. Free Will is true, if you believe it. Of course, not believing in Free Will means that you believe that we cannot make choices for ourselves and I rather doubt you believe that.

I personally, also, can't believe in God when there are so many. Which one? It's like a room full of people all saying they're true. Either one really is telling the truth (fat chance) or they're all lies. And why wouldn't God make it more obvious which religion is right if he's really out there? And why are we in God's image? You're telling me the creator of the Universe, out of hundreds of billions of galaxies, chose us to look like Him, a small mote of dust floating on the inner arm of a barred spiral galaxy?

Why just this planet? Certainly there must be others, but the Bible sure doesn't mention them (it's obviously a product of its time when it comes to explaining thing). But I'm quite sure religion will adapt when we find out there are equally intelligent (or more so) intelligent beings out there, even if they're completely left field of what we expect life to look like. That's the great adaptable aspect of religion, and it fits lock-step with its creators, one of the most (if not the most) adaptable species on this planet.

God doesn't have a human form like we do; the phrase "made in His image" doesn't mean "physically". Spiritually, we were made in His image.

No one said he didn't make other beings elsewhere. If they are out there, though, they are far enough away that a simple conversation--"Hi. What's up?" "Not much. What's up with you?"--will take hundreds of years to happen. It is highly unlikely that we will encounter them any time soon.

In the end we're given a series of choices in life concerning what to believe in, any one of which could be wrong and no instruction manual. Well, guess he was too busy structuring the atom?

There is an instruction manual. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

I dislike fisking; however, I felt it necessary this one time to address the very valid points you raise.

[Linna Heartbooger]

HLT- GREAT thread. Totally disagree with you a bunch of things, but hey, I think this cuts to core issues!

Like who Jesus is. Is He a liar, lunatic or God? Or do we have to throw out half the Gospels?

Or who Linden Avery is. Or do we have to throw out most of the Second Chronicles and say every chapter about her is not canonical?

...The only way to repair that disconnect was for God to become mortal, like Man, and then die. He gave up His life for you--that is hardcore goodness.


so...where'd you get this version of that "he gave up his life for you" bit?
this whole disconnection from god bit?
why was the only way to repair the disconnect from god (or...yahweh more specifically, because i assume, tho i may be wrong, thats the god we're talking about) for him to become mortal, incarnate into a physical manifestation, and then die?
is this your interpretation of stuff you've read or been told or is this written down somewhere in these words or what.

reason i ask is because this has always been a sticking point for me.
the whole "died for you" thing. how did him incarnating into physical form
and dying repair the connection?
how did we get disconnected?

i am NOT being sarcastic. this is a real query.

Hey Lucimay- I'm the girl raising my hand, jumping up and down, saying "mmeee, mee, pick me!" I LOVE those questions! They are so important & deep.

For starters, there's Jesus crying out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" from the cross. You've probably heard that before, though... maybe a bunch of times. So... what do you make of that? Also, if you want the surrounding context, www.biblegateway.com is a great tool for that.

Thank goodness there were some folks who understood Aramaic standing nearby, or maybe the Bible verses would only have, "It sounded like Jesus said 'Elijah! Elijah! Llamas sabbathing!' or something incomprehensible." Anybody who doesn't get that joke should read the following spoiler if you plan to go to a Good Friday service.

Spoiler

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders hearing it said, "Behold, he is calling Elijah." And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down."

I think I can try to answer some pieces of this. But I'm gonna be slow at this. So if I don't respond on this thread in a week, prod me, will ya? =)

[Worm of Despite]

In the end we're given a series of choices in life concerning what to believe in, any one of which could be wrong and no instruction manual. Well, guess he was too busy structuring the atom?

There is an instruction manual. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

I dislike fisking; however, I felt it necessary this one time to address the very valid points you raise.

I don't think I was fisking; merely bringing some, yes, valid questions to the mix. That's another thing: ever since I was a child raising such questions were reprimanded, and yet I'm just exercising human nature (with, granted, a spice of good humor). I've had enough debates go sour by doing otherwise!

As an instruction manual I'll take science, philosophy, personal experience and women.

As for us being his "spiritual" image--that was never clear to me, and I'd be interested to know what the Hebrew's original translation meant in terms of that famous quote.

And this will be my last gadfly moment, sir To say the Bible didn't mention aliens means it includes them is just a bit weird to me. If this book wasn't a product of it's time, I'd have expected it to lay out the laws and possibilities of the universe much in the way science does. Surely it's God's word and should contain something that sets it apart in knowledge and omniscience, yet for me I only see a text reflecting old world views, myths and mores.

[Fist and Faith]

I think it means we're made in God's physical image. Soon after, God was walking through the Garden, and they heard his footsteps. Anybody can retcon that, but it says what it says.