why reject jesus what do you got to lose

No AU, the hoax of the ages is being pulled off by the Bush Administration right now!

Different type of hoax. One aided and abetted by the_______ [you supply the adjective] of the American people.

To "choose Jesus", a theology that for me is full of holes, would required rejection of other religions that appear to come more closely to the the "nature of things".

As a product of Western Civilization, and one who would never choose to live elsewhere or in other ways, it would be much easier to follow one of the Abrahamic based religious schools/sects. Judahism of the three major branches of Abrahamism is in many ways the least objectionable, though the Orthodox Church has some appeal as well. They are both almost as culturally foreign to many Americans as the Buddhism, that I follow. Of course, Islam, even before the radical terrorists began their latest campaign to return the modern world to the 7th century, is more difficult to fit into our culture than Santaria. Roman and the gazillions of Protestant sects, those are generally the religions of our culture. As my Grandmother used to say with such tolerance, "You can be anything you like, so long as its Christian". Of course, she was a Southern Baptist. A distant relative of mine was a Quaker, another "tolerant" sect, who burned the half dozen books of classical literature that I lent with the thought she might actually read them. I use the past-tense, because both are long since dead, leaving the world to less "tolerant" people.

For me the religions most common to China (Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucism) are more likely to form a sound theological base for the modern world. Confucism as a separate religion doesn't really fit into our cultural jigsaw puzzel very well, but it had a tremendous effect on Taoism and the Chinese variations of Buddhism. Buddhism, especially C'han or Zen as it is named in Japan, seem particularily well suited for humans in search of religious experience.

Buddhism has been increasingly attractive to Westerners since the mid to late 19th century. Many Buddhist texts were translated into German, some of which are even today the best translations into European languages available. British colonialists brought back seedlings as well, and by the end of WWI there were small Anglo-Buddhist groups of in England and in the United States. By the end of the 20th century Buddhism in the United States had ground to the point where I'm no longer regarded as a religious-oddity. Today there are a relatively large number of American's who have become monks and priests in Mahayana and Tantric Schools. Not surprisingly the number of Americans drawn to Theravada is far smaller. Many more Americans are "Buddhist" to some extent, or another, without becoming monks or priests. So far, unfortunately, the number and size of lay congregations of Anglo/American Buddhists has remained very, very small. That is the challenge to Western Buddhism in the 21st century.

We need to develop Buddhist congregations, and that I believe depends upon fiting Buddhism to Western culture. Most of the monks, nuns, and priests adopt the cultural trappings of their school/sect. That is they adopt Tibetan, or Japanese, or Chinese names, habits and traditions. That is fine if they are going to lead congregations of Tibetans, Japanese, or Chinese, but it is unlikely to attract most Westerners who would become Buddhists if the religion were culturally more approachable. Buddhism sprang from Indian religion and culture, and it failed to gain large numbers of adherents until the development of Mahayana Buddhism. With Mahayana doctrines, Buddhism spread quickly to Tibet, Afghanistan, China, Southeast Asia, and Japan. In each of those locations Mahayan Buddhism adapted itself to the native cultural set, and then began to thrive. Mahayana Buddhism has yet to fully adapt to Western culture, and until it does I'm afraid that Buddhism will remain a small minority religion. That is too bad, because the modern industrialized world sorely needs a good alternative to the Abrahamic religions with their intolerance of other faiths.

I never did answer the question....why reject Jesus?

I don't reject Jesus at all. I don't subscribe to a lot of the hocus pocus and lightening bolt description of God that a lot of people do. I don't think God is vengeful or something to be feared, like I was taught. I don't think that I will roast in hell for not attending church or for making silly jokes about Jesus. In fact, I think God would be laughing his butt off (if he had one!) at it. He has the biggest sense of humor of all. Look at our faces during orgasm.

I figure, the worst that could come of believing is that I live a life filled with helping others and making this place a little bit nicer to live in and then when I die, I'm just dead.

On the other hand, those who don't believe will be in for a surprise if God turns out to be real. I, however, believe in their divine right to choose not to believe. God gave us a brain and free will and we are to use it.

From what I've read of your posts in this forum, I can't help but feel you havn't much respect for yourself either.

Wanda

In order to 'reject' something, one must be presented with said something. Produce jesus, bring him before me, and I will be in a position to accept/reject. Till then, I can't do either.

Whoa! You would ask that Jesus be brought to you? You really do think you are a god, don't you?

Just something you might want to keep in mind Doktor S, even the devil believes in God and Jesus Christ.

Well yes, but that is beside the point.

I am simply explaining basic logic.

To either reject or accept something, you must first have something.

Since there is nothing of jesus, neither convincing evidence nor him in the flesh, there is nothing to reject.

Ah, but that is where you are mistaken, Doktor S. One does not have to have proof to believe.

Yes, and Loki believes in Odin and Thor(who oddly enough was the son of a god)

The Hebrew word helel does not appear in the NT. That the vulgate uses the term lucifer in both cases is once again proof that the term is not a name but a description.

That nominal christians have used the term as another name for Satan, is an indictment of their scholarship, not a validation of their claim

If one wishes to remain rational, one does.
I think it boils down to a propensity for logic and clear critical thinking vs a propensity for 'feel-good' vibes based on no thinking at all.
Who is to say which is better. Who defines what is 'better' anyhow?

So, you think it is perfectly rational that you think yourself a god? I think it's more rational to think there is something greater than man.

define 'greater'

Creator.

so, in effect, you are saying 'it is more rational to believe there is a creator'.
I simply disagree.

I think it is more rational than making myself a god, yes. I cannot create things like He did.

Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Here Jesus is the morning star and Halal is the Morning Star

sadly, there are people who think they are gods. Many today actually.

That is what we are talking about, I'm the other one. Doktor S says he is a Satanist and he is a god.