English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I think the influence of Jesus is greater than any man that ever lived. I think his DNA would show male and female chromosones. I think the Bible is full of beautiful allegories and some myths, suitable for the 99% illiterate public 2000 years ago. I find it strange that the many professional writers in the first century (Josephus,Tacitus,Seneca, Juvenal and Pliny) who wrote about every event of their time scarcely mentioned Christ and NEVER recrorded any of the supernatural events that were3 mentioned 300 uears later.

I find it strange that the gospels mention the fact that Jesus had two sisters but NONE of the gospels ever mentions their names.

I find it strange that although "ecumenism" (the unification of all christians) is a constanltly favored goal, the present Pope, declares in print (see: Dominus Iesus in Google) that ALL churches but his are DEFECTIVE and should not even be called churches but instead "religious communities". Doesn't this put back ecumenism 200 yrs?

2007-08-31 14:25:15 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

11 answers

Sounds a lot like a unitarian universalism or deism to me, but it seems to me your particular set of beliefs would dovetail well with most progressive Christian denominations.

Only you can decide. don't let others label ya

2007-08-31 14:33:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

"I find it strange that the many professional writers in the first century (Josephus,Tacitus,Seneca, Juvenal and Pliny) who wrote about every event of their time scarcely mentioned Christ and NEVER recrorded any of the supernatural events that were3 mentioned 300 uears later."
Okay, I just began reading "A Case for Christ" and I wanted to point out that recording history, if there was nothing to be gained from it (like a lesson), was unheard of in those times and therefore, it is only sensible that only Christians would record the history of Jesus.

2007-08-31 14:33:34 · answer #2 · answered by Charlie 3 · 0 0

Why would Juvenal and Pliny write about a "desert messiah", who to them would have been one in a long line of preachers in a backwater place called Judea out in the middle of nowhere? Why would they give credence to what they considered "tricks" (if they even heard of them) done by a "magician"? Magicians and messiahs were a dime a dozen, before and after Christ's time on Earth. You seem to be naively imposing a modern perspective on a very different time in history.

Protestants think the Pope is an over-dressed pretender to a throne that never existed, and we would never want to be "unified" with his church.

2007-08-31 14:43:16 · answer #3 · answered by babbie 6 · 0 0

Our Creator is so expansive, and could not be contained within the box of any religion.

If you are on the outside of the box, and asking questions, that is the right place for you at this time. No one's path is the same as anothers. Flee from labels.

Think: Our Creator is having a celebration in Denver, CO, and has invited ALL people. Some people will drive, some will fly, some will come by boat, and others will walk. What is important, is not how we arrive, but that we do arrive.

2007-08-31 14:33:22 · answer #4 · answered by Grace 2 · 0 0

each physique is self universal and conceited. anybody. Atheism produces purely as plenty if not greater intolerance as the different faith (sure, i'm pertaining to it as a faith), by using fact the conceitedness is a factor of our make up as a species. yet believing that there is a known to stay by such by using fact the word of God, and believing that those that don't stay by those standards will flow to hell isn't intolerance. Intolerance isn't permitting the word Christmas by using fact it has the word Christ in it, and stressful that that is referred to as "wintry climate party" or some such crap. that is intolerance. The political correctness that has plagued our society is the suitable occasion in intolerance.

2016-10-17 08:38:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You sound like any of the non-Christian, non-monotheist religions out there. If you're into nature, you might stray Neo-Pagan. If you're more into self balance, perhaps Taoism...?

What you believe is entirely up to you. It's unfortunate that we're often forced to give ourselves a religious label on the spot.

2007-08-31 14:42:15 · answer #6 · answered by Rapunzel XVIII 5 · 0 0

I would call you an agnostic, one who believes in God but is still seeking answers. Keep seeking...and don't forget to read the Bible... May I also recommend books by Lee Strobel, such as A Case for Faith?

2007-08-31 14:34:31 · answer #7 · answered by rejoiceinthelord 5 · 0 0

Undecided and searching for answers, for every answer there are many more questions it is what makes us Human. I doubt very much any other living creature on the planet contemplates such things. I pray you find the answers you need!
God Bless

2007-08-31 14:54:42 · answer #8 · answered by oakscrty 2 · 0 0

I would say you are closest to a Diests. But not all labels fit.

2007-08-31 14:30:47 · answer #9 · answered by punch 7 · 0 0

Dip stick.

2007-08-31 14:30:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers