Jesus Christ, literal son of God?

All good things come in threes, so a final post, for now, on the Jimianity vs Christianity debate.

At central issue is who is ultimate priestboss: Jim or Jesus. Having this debate offends many Christians – I wonder if this will be linked at Social Matter.

Offending Christians loses their allegiance. OK, how strong are the Christians as allies?

Catholics seem pretty down on their luck. God seems to have sent a sign in that, just as I am writing these posts, Catholic scandal after scandal is paraded in the media. Seems like a raging case of teh gays. Church after church emptying, going broke. So they are up shit creek without a paddle.

What about the other group of Christians, Protestants? Seem to be doing better than Catholics, in that they seem to have a much wider spread of small-to-medium groups. Still, emptying churches and not so much power, but there’s enough exceptions to take note of.

Let’s take note of 2 such groups: Mormons and the Amish. Both are doing well. Mormons increased their numbers to 16 million, Amish rapidly approaching 300.000 (from 100.000 thirty years ago). How do they handle the Jesus situation?

Mormonism, from Joseph Smith. Amish, from Jakob Ammann. Both deal with Jesus by praising Him as the true and only path. Joseph Smith presented as a prophet of Jesus, visions and all. Jakob Ammann was much more sober, disciplinarian, no visions. Though he also wrote aloud that he was starting a new faith.

So, both successful Christian spin-offs are named after their new prophet, both prophets announced they were spreading new faith, both prophets denounced their enemies as ‘not true followers of Christ.’ So, different from my proposal, but successful nonetheless.

Up til now it seems Jim has also chosen this path, in the sense of allowing Christ veneration, denouncing calling Christ a miracle faker. My proposal is more aggressive: call Jesus, among his other great achievements, a miracle faker.

A counter could be: ‘alf, if it was good enough for Joe and Jake, it is good enough for Jim.’ To that I think: maybe. Perhaps. Though I do not get the impression that that is what Jim is going for.

Another counter could be: ‘alf, you are younger and impatient, best to play the long game, best to stay in (Charles the Second’s) Christian frame.’ Maybe. It is a tough question.

Here is my case.

Doing another attempt at summarizing Jimianity: Jim calls out liars. He is really good at it. It is what I integrate quite successfully in my own life: I call out liars, and through reading Jim I have a pretty good understanding of how to call them out successfully. It is dirty business, but it works. ‘Name the leftist’ you might call it.

Now, as I have repeatedly stated, Jesus did not return from the dead. It is a lie. Yes, it is a central organizing lie and central organizing lies are important and powerful, but it is a flagrant, obvious lie nonetheless. I don’t believe that Jim, with his keen sense of smelling bullshit, believes Jesus returned from the dead, in fact I remember him saying somewhere he believed the disciples paid off the tomb guards, although I have no clue where.

But perhaps I misremember. At any rate, so far no outholying of Jesus. No certain answer from Jim on whether Jesus is the literal son of God.

Continuing paraphrasing Jimianity… It also seems to me that one of its messages is to rain fire down upon enemies, or at the very least fight them when advantageous, and not blink when it is prudent not to blink. If we are to wrest the West back from evil doers, should we not practice what we preach and start to conquer? What portrays us as stronger: when we win back Christianity by kissing Christians’ asses or by conquering their asses? The latter wins faith and respect, the former wins a monument to compromise.

A counter to this might be: ‘if we make it disrespectful to call Jesus a miracle faker and we simultaneously make it disrespectful to call out people calling Jesus a miracle faker, we have a working allegiance.’ I think it is an unworkable allegiance. It requires Christians to at some point get the joke. Seems to me Christians are not getting the joke at all. I try, I hint and I wink, but they respond with anger and demand to know what I am hinting and winking. If they do not get such a big and obvious hint, what other big and obvious hints are they also not getting? Need to establish dominance.

An added benefit of putting Jesus in the right context is that it allows the conversion of atheists, who, for all their other faults, do get the joke.

Anyway, I think that is my position.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Jesus Christ, literal son of God?

  1. >No certain answer from Jim on whether Jesus is the literal son of God.

    Jim is an atheist or an agnostic; he advocates 1660-1860 Anglicanism because he sees it as the state religion most conducive to the building of technological civilization. Of course, under such a religion, must not deny that Jesus is the son of God, and is Himself God’s incarnate flesh.

  2. The Orthodox seem to be doing fine. Not having a Pope might have something to do with that. The Orthodox are also avoiding the progessive trap has taken most Protestants.

    1. I am not very familiar with the Orthodox church, but to the extent that I am familiar with Eastern Europe, I have my doubts whether it will work for the West.

      1. Well, yes, I also have my doubts whether Orthodoxy would work in West. But Catholicism, Angelikanism and Protestantism evidently do not work in the West.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.