Simple poll: who here thinks that jesus really was/is the son of god?

[Guest roger]

I am curious about how this specific question comes out in the poll.

I've not included 'don't know' as an answer, I am sure that evidence could be found and posted either way to aid discussion - but since logically he either did/is or isn't I think that it is a fair question to ask voting opinions in this limited way.

Edited August 18, 2008 by roger

[Hughie Green]

No to the son of god question and yes to he did exist or at least a person that the christ myth was based on existed(whom ever that may have been).

[Boojum]

Of course Jesus, or someone corresponding to Jesus, given the time between now & then, existed. There is historical evidence (not the fairytale religious book, proper historical evidence) to support his existence. That's not up for question. Of course he wasn't the son of a fictional character, born by a process that is impossible by any kind of biology you want to examine. Virgin birth ? Pick me up off the floor after I've stopped laughing, cos I'm sure as shit not gonna be able to walk. VIRGIN BIRTH ???? HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU WANT TO BE ???? Yes he probably was a person. Son of God ? Sorry, pick me up again after I've stopped laughing again. It's Monty Python's funniest joke in the world sketch. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I forgot to mention

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[tsk]

yes and yes.

but he never claimed to be the only son of god iirc, but that we were ALL the children of God

something along the lines of "all that i am you too can be, and so much more..." so in that respect, sure he was the son of god, but no more or less than the rest of us...

is the bible an accurate portrayal of his life and teachings? thats a different question entirely...

i like the jesus christ in a course in miracles, who goes some way to "clarifying" his words and representation in the bible. hahaha

barry norman had a saying... what was it now...

[Chris P]

No & Yes, respectively

[Culchi]

I can understand Tsk's statement, though sorry mucker, I've no idea what Barry Norman's saying was - if you only go to the pictures once this year, make sure it's to watch this film? Roger, if for an instant you try to imagine Jesus, not as a person, but as being something within all persons, something to be aspired to, yet more often than not rejected, the truth that is held up for all to see but they persecute instead, rather than listen to and understand, perhaps realise the Christ within themselves, it might help adjust your set to get a better picture.

Personally, I can believe in Jesus, as I can believe in Buddha, as enlightened people who saw and spoke the truth. Some believed them, others didn't. Virgin birth? I have my doubts, but a concept born of innocence, now that I can believe in. In that case, perhaps we really are the children of God? Are we the only species on Earth with any concept of right and wrong, good and evil, if so, why do we have it and no other? Surely evolution would have ensured that only ultimate evil existed by now, or has it already? What is our conscience and what is it for? What purpose does it serve? Is that the thing we must kill first and foremost to enable us to survive, or learnt to be ignored?

[Randalizer]

I've understood that the term Christ was a sort of title, with asides to the phenomenon known as Christ Consciousness. I've also understood the new testament in such a way as when Jesus refers to himself, he is actually referring (perhaps at certain times, I'm no bible scholar) to Christ Consciousness.

In such a manner I think that when Jesus (supposedly) said "I am the son of God", I believe he was referring in a more metaphorical sense to the state of Christ Consciousness (compassion?). Keeping in mind how (debatably) much more violent folks were back then, a concept of peace and forgiveness (especially in that region) must have seen as God sent by folks who were constantly subjected to violent thugs, in a society with very little in the way of any social structure to help people like we have today.

Just a thought.

eta: Of course when I am feeling a bit paranoid, I enjoy the idea of the whole conspiracy theory of The Christ Story being one of the best crafted crowd control hegemony's out there. A finely edited story!

Edited August 18, 2008 by Randalizer

[Randalizer]

Are we the only species on Earth with any concept of right and wrong, good and evil,

I believe other species feel these instincts as well. I prefer to think of it as the two basic instincts for survival;

caring for one another (compassion)

and destroying anything that is edible or useful for our survival. Hopefully we can see far enough into the future to know how much destruction actually benefits us and how much actually hurts us.

When I look at things in an intelligent survival way, the good/evil labels drop away. Unfortunately ( ) I'm often not wise enough to know what is healthy/unhealthy for me and others.

[bhudika]

wow, im surprised that so many people on here believe in god, i thought blind faith went out of fashion with Mrs Thatcher!

[Arnold Layne]

What do you mean by "Son of God"?

What do you mean by "God"

Without comprehensive definition of these terms, this poll means zip.

Impossible to vote.

Plus, to deny a vote of agnosticism is just plain dumb - means the vote is biased and rigged.

[Quagmire]

Strange thing is jesus never claimed to be the 'Son of God', he actually claimed to be the 'Son of Man', it was the plonkers around him that called him anything todo with God, I think he was just a regular dude that 'went down in History' for pissing off the Romans, history writers embellished the reports to emphasise just how radical this protester was.

[ukbudlover]

god,son of god

if people believed in big rabbits with 2 heads that they talk to they would be locked up in a padded cell.

lots of people believe in god and they are ok?

theres more Chance of nessie being real.

ukbl

[lordie]

Hi, there is a really cool book by Michael Moorcock about a bloke who travels back in time to find Jesus. He gets to Jerusalem and finds a retarded hunchback called Jesus.......... This time traveller becomes the role of Jesus in full knowledge of what the end is. Quite an interesting take on religious perceptions.

As for myself, I think the man existed and the events happened, but alot of cultures/religions have some sort of messiah figure who heals the sick and such and a lot of these can be traced back. So I think wise and cosmic people exist but other people label and try to control their memory for their own ends.

[Guest roger]

What do you mean by "Son of God"?

What do you mean by "God"

Without comprehensive definition of these terms, this poll means zip.

Impossible to vote.

Plus, to deny a vote of agnosticism is just plain dumb - means the vote is biased and rigged.

son of god & god, as it is explained to millions of children and generaly understood by most christians - I'm not trying to be difficult here!

nope, not rigged - one could, not vote until you have heard some arguments.

Talk to us about Q, I'd not heard that idea before.

eta: agnostasism is fine in the abstract, but surley a historical event either did or did not happen, would it make sense to ask if people are agnostic about Henry the Eighth ?

Edited August 18, 2008 by roger

[Arnold Layne]

What do you mean by "Son of God"?

What do you mean by "God"

Without comprehensive definition of these terms, this poll means zip.

Impossible to vote.

Plus, to deny a vote of agnosticism is just plain dumb - means the vote is biased and rigged.

son of god & god, as it is explained to millions of children and generaly understood by most christians - I'm not trying to be difficult here!

And neither am I. Simply pointing out the fact that such questions are impossible to answer in any meaningful way. What you mean by "Son of God" is truly very different from what I do. Yet you and I both came through the same cultural/religious background, both of us are operating out of a christian philosophical background.

Talk to us about Q, I'd not heard that idea before.

Huh? Are you sure? Is it relevent?

Well Ok, yes it could be relevent. If folks are going to debate issues in a forum called "Theology, Metaphysics & Phlosophy", then perhaps to dig a little deeper than usual is good. So, here's "Q":

When scholars study the texts that make up the New Testament, one of the first things they do is engage in a Literary Critical analysis of the texts. That is to say, in simple terms, that they try and work out exactly how the text came about, how it was written, by whom, and how it was edited together over time by various editors. When it comes to the first three Gospels (called the "Synoptic Gospels") it is very evident that all three share a common background text. This text, or rather the author behind it, is what is known as "Q". A careful criticism of the texts can trace out the lines of what Q's text might have looked like, althoug different scholars will always have differing fine points on this. What value is there in knowing about Q? This: It allows the student of the Gospels to see how the core events spoken of in Q are moulded and interpreted to suit the ends of the various Gospel authors/editors. It shows the development of theology, the evolution of Christianity over the early decades/centuries of its existence. It liberates us from the straight-jacket of blind fundamentalism too.

eta: agnostasism is fine in the abstract, but surley a historical event either did or did not happen, would it make sense to ask if people are agnostic about Henry the Eighth ?

Hmmm, yes but you're not talking about Henry VIII. You're talking about Jesus and using terms like "Son of God" which surely falls into the domain of theological interpretation rather than historical event, doesn't it?

One could be agnostic about the existence of Jesus, if one felt there was insufficient evidence, or that the extant evidence were somehow flawed, and yet the clarity of the tradition still demanded some sort of foundation, no?

And one could be agnostic about Henry VIII too, because surely we have to admit that the percieved Henry VIII in popular culture is largely mythological. Isn't it? So unless one can find a true and accurate account, agnosticism over his precise significance may be the only option?

Edited August 18, 2008 by Arnold Layne