How does anyone truly know what the "message of Jesus" is?

The man, if he existed, left no written words of his own.

Everything we know about the man, if he existed, is third-hand AT BEST.

Looking at the history of Christianity, the conflict and strife in the religion has generally been over disagreements as to what that "message of Jesus" is. Christians have literally killed each other over them, and the end result is that we are still no closer to universal agreement as to what the actual "message of Jesus" entails.

Maybe it's time to dump the approach of "living in accordance with the message of Jesus"?

Or do you, guillaumeb, claim to be the sole human being in the world who KNOWS with 100% certainty what that message is?

Or not. As you wish.

I am questioning that assumption.

Will you answer my question?

That is why I oppose you. That is why I question your assumptions and all your logical fallacies. That is why I defend others whom you attack.

So, will you answer the question?

That is revealing.

So, what do you think it reveals?

Why does it matter to how you behave?

And why won't you answer my simple question?

27% of my posts are made in this group.

What could your point possibly be?

What does either reveal? That's simple. Both of you, and I, are interested in religion and issues surrounding religion.

Are people not allowed to be interested in what interests them if it somehow has an impact on you?

Again, what was "the message of Jesus?"

The message of Jesus is lovingkindness to all. The encrypted parables describe karma, reincarnation, the god system and more. The purpose of that knowledge is to understand the way of lovingkindness' role in the whole system. That knowledge is not faith, forgiveness or vicarious atonement. Such dogma is level 1/pagan/beginner Christianity.

Jesus angrily turned a faithful healer from his heaven. That man had apparently not "paid his fines down to the last cent." There was no forgiveness, his faith didn't count and Jesus didn't die for him. Only filling your bank account with lovingkindness currency matters...and we'll have all the lives we need.

Mman, you're a good person, as is the often maligned guillaume. You may have different routes and different thinking, but you're both right.

Now whatshisname is going to chew me out for proselytizing! I'm in for it! I'm not trying to convert! Just answering a question!

I "Chewed" you out in the Atheists forum. I also said that you could go for your life here in the Religion group.

that Mike Pence thinks NOT being allowed to discriminate against gay people is "persecution."

Christianity is fundamentally (no pun intended) constructed upon the message that if you're doing it right, people will hate you. Leaving aside the ridiculous logic in that (I'm gonna hate someone who punches me in the face, too), it encourages Christians of all political stripes to interpret any disagreement as oppression.

That was worth a chuckle.

Years. It's okay by me if you doubt that it's possible. If it weren't for one event, I'd be lost, too, when it comes to understanding the son, pigs, water, mountains, money, the vineyard, prison, wine, food, the "masters"...all the pesky imagery used to convey the "hidden" teachings. But none of it's actually necessary if one lives to help others. Poor Christianity has been sorely abused since just about the beginning. To live in kindness doesn't require membership.

The notion that we should treat each other how we wish to be treated predates Christianity by millennia.

Perhaps it's just good human morality that we figured out on our own, and Jesus had nothing to do with it.

In what circles was she a prominent person?

Further, what is "the message of Jesus," exactly. He is supposed to have said many things. Some of them reflect the wisdom that pretty much all religions and societies espouse. What he said that is commonly believed to be good actions and thoughts is just fine, as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know, I generally follow all of those rules, because they are the rules of most societies.

Or, is the "message of Jesus" the concept that only belief in Jesus can save you from an eternity of punishment? He said that stuff, too, according to the third-hand words attributed to him. I reject that nonsense, since I reject the concept of anything after the death of the individual that pertains to that individual.

So, what is that message, guillaumeb that you so blithely drop in your post? Which parts do you follow? Are there parts of his message that you don't follow? How do you decide, I wonder?

Still, thank you for adding your personal comment to your fragment from your link. It is to that I am responding, since I have no knowledge of that person.

But she was indeed prominent.

Apparently, also circles unimportant to me.

Go away.

Reflexive responses reveal much.

The gist of the article is "I'm OK voting for pro-choice candiates until a better anti-choice option comes along."

You have your narrative. Enjoy it.

You're not addressing that point. It's easy to understand why, because she was not a progressive on that topic. It interferes with your tidy narrative.

And you decide, of course, what that means.

96% of the time.

Rachel Held Evans was anti-choice. That is a simple fact.

least to some degree. I'd have to be at my desktop, though to find examples of that. I believe I'm correct, though.

Eta: No, it was easier than I thought. Here's a thread in that regard

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218258352

Here is a link.

That way you can use your reasoning and research skills to inform yourself.

Thank you for acknowledging the point.

My guess, well you know what it is.

And she identifies as "pro-life." Fact.

...and said abortion in most cases is morally wrong. Not that much different than at least one other poster in this group. At least that explains the effort to change the subject.

This is a model progressive Christian that they're supposed to emulate? Sheesh.

But evidently that doesn't matter because she endorsed HRC (only because Trump wasn't an acceptable anti-choice candidate).

Interesting how someone can claim they are all about the discussion, yet continuously tries to control the narrative. I guess when you are used to giving sermons, critical review is off limits.

he tries to distract by commenting on how much I post in this group.

...again.

But yeah, kinda rich coming from the guy who posts here at least as much as anyone, most of which is just a regurgitation of previous posts and OPs.

Oh well, I guess someone needs to continuously offer a “counterpoint” for condemnations of child rape.

...has been opposed to body autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, or both.

you're demanding impossible perfection.

Meanwhile, Richard Dawkins puts out a dumb tweet and he's the worst person who ever lived because atheist.

Christians don't give Dawkins the same leeway they give their own "progressives".

Know what's funny, though? I don't give leeway to either of them.

from whatever the person is promoting.

Religion ended slavery. Religion gave us civil rights. Religion gave women the vote. Religion got us out of Vietnam. Religion opposed nuclear proliferation. Religion ended communism. Religion gave us General Relativity and the Human Genome Project.

Atheists, humanists, secularists... nothing to do with any of it at all. Or so we're told.

I'm a pro-choicer who voted for Hillary Clinton. I had no need of her advice, as far as I can see.

You see, I don't feel as though I need to know about everyone, really. That I had never encountered her name means that she is likely not of interest to me, really.

If I wanted to learn about her, though, I wouldn't do it from your link. I'd look at this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Held_Evans

I'd learn much more about her at that link, actually, which I just finished reading. I still don't think she's someone I need to learn more about. But, hey, that's just me.

And now, about your "message of Jesus" thing? I asked some questions about that above. Do you have answers?

Or a buch of people who already agreed with her on pretty much everything bought her books. Guess we'll find out in 2020.

I mean, if God intended we have a Rachel, he wouldn't have taken the one we had.

I will guess that the answer is no.

We're just posting words now, I guess.

Have fun with your day.

That is today’s word of gods.

A denomination of mayonnaise.

about that woman, two of them posted by you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218313648

Did the previous thread not get enough attention or something.

There's an even earlier thread still on that page, too:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218313440

That one, as I pointed out in your previous thread on the subject, was sourced from an actual reliable source.

Was Rachel Evans really that prominent?

Certainly didn’t post anything about her when she was alive.

Perhaps he gets a percentage of the fucks not given here about the passage of a pro-lifer.

So is there something in Religion that seems to intrinsically opposes liberalism? Is there something in it that is essentially conservative? So that most Christians would oppose Guil's liberal religiosity.

Why is religion often very conservative? It might be intrinsic to the nature of religion, and the sacred.

Once you have declared something to be "sacred" and holy, it naturally becomes very hard to progress beyond that point. And to change, or progress.

The emphasis on "eternal" truths, makes change, advancement, difficult.

So some might applaud Guil's and others' attempts to liberalize Christianity and other religions. But we might note that there might be some internal forces at work there, that make such a thing inherently difficult. In fact, there is something in the "Sacred" itself, that seems intrinsically conservative.

Attempts to make open-mindedness itself sacred therefore, seem interesting , but difficult. If not logically self contradictory.

So maybe an inherent problem in religion and the sacred itself, is one reason many people become atheists.

No.

This is why so many are turned off by religion.

It is more divisive than anything.

I believe in the golden rule. We are all connected. That is all.

I am not familiar with Evans, other than seeing her name on the books among those in my local bookstore. Might have to read a book or two to understand the trigger.

We are here to discuss religion. Some of us are of the opinion religion is not all rainbows, lolipops, and unicorn farts. This is also a forum for Democrats. Some of us don't like it when anti-choicers are held aloft as paragons of progressive virtue. Given all that, I am surprised anyone would be surprised by the tone of the comments here.

Please feel free to report back on your reading.

Who woulda thunk it?

And yet some of these "progressives" make excuses for repression if it is directed at theists.

Who could have imagined?

You should be ashamed.

Where at DU were you asked to apologize?

You can attack my "tone" all you want. You can try to change the subject all you want, but it's not going to work.

Evans proclaimed herself "pro-life" and supportive of more restrictions on the right to a safe, legal abortion.

Since you can't dispute that fact, you are attacking my "tone."

Typical.

I asked a specific question.

And, being apparently unable to provide substantiation, you try, ironically, to change the subject.

Typical.

You whined about "tone" as if those who are objecting to your promotion of someone who favors restricting abortion rights are doing something wrong.

YOU TELL ME, GUILLAUMEB. Do I have anything to apologize for, for opposing your hero's stance on abortion rights?

Jennifer Aniston, that's who.

No others need apply.